Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2018 Feb 1.
Published in final edited form as: Neuroimage. 2016 Aug 20;146:1071–1083. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.08.035

Figure 4.

Figure 4

Summary of eccentricity-dependent functional connectivity patterns and their similarity to control networks. The left-hand column shows regions with connectivity patterns selective for central, near-peripheral and far-peripheral V1 (taken from Figure 3). Plots illustrate eccentricity-dependent connectivity patterns observed for core regions associated with the fronto-parietal, cingulo-opercular, and task-negative/default mode networks (taken from Figure 2). The right-hand column illustrates previously documented spatial patterns for the fronto-parietal, cingulo opercular, and task-negative/default mode networks (figure modified from (Yeo et al. 2011)). Note that the regions showing preferential connectivity to central V1 resemble the fronto-parietal network, regions showing preferential connectivity to near-peripheral V1 resemble the cingulo-opercular network, and regions showing preferential connectivity to far-peripheral V1 resemble the task negative/default mode network. A. Regions showing stronger functional connectivity to the 1.3° (central) eccentricity sector than to the other sectors are color-coded in shades of red. Darkest red indicates regions that showed stronger connectivity to the 1.3° sector than to both the 7.3° and 40.0° sectors. Lighter red indicates regions that showed stronger connectivity to the 1.3° compared to the 40.0° sector, but did not differ between the 1.3° and 7.3° sectors. Lightest red indicates regions that showed stronger connectivity to the 1.3° sector compared to the 7.3° sector, but did not differ between the 1.3° and 40.0° sectors. B. Regions showing stronger functional connectivity to the 7.3° (near-peripheral) eccentricity sector than to the other sectors. Darkest orange indicates regions that showed stronger connectivity to the 7.3° sector than to both the 1.3° and 40.0° sectors. Lighter orange indicates regions that showed stronger connectivity to the 7.3° sector compared to the 40.0° sector, but that did not differ between the 7.3° and 1.3° sectors. Lightest orange indicates regions that showed stronger connectivity to the 7.3° sector compared to the 1.3° sector, but did not differ between the 7.3° sector and the 40.0° sector. C. Regions showing stronger functional connectivity to the 40.0° (far-peripheral) eccentricity sector than to the other sectors. Darkest blue indicates regions that showed stronger connectivity to the 40.0° sector compared to both the 1.3° and 7.3° sectors. Lighter blue indicates regions that showed stronger connectivity to the 40.0° sector than to the 7.3° sector, but did not differ between the 40.0° sector and the 1.3° sector. Lightest blue indicates regions that showed stronger connectivity to the 40.0° sector compared to the 1.3° sector, but that did not differ between the 40.0° sector and the 7.3° sector. Note that this figure is intended to provide a qualitative illustration of the spatial similarities between the results of our quantitative analysis of eccentricity-dependent differences in functional connectivity and previously described control networks, and does not include quantitative information beyond that included in Figures 2 and 3.