Table 2.

Latency of the visual response and of repetition suppression in ITC and V2 as estimated by taking measurements from population histograms in the indicated figures

	Visual latency, ms	Suppression latency, ms	Suppression half-height, ms
ITC: Freedman et al., 2006 (their Fig. 8)	76	109	152
ITC: Mruczek and Sheinberg, 2007 (their Fig. 9A)	56	131	154
ITC: Anderson et al., 2008 (their Fig. 4M)	82	106 (120)	121
ITC: Anderson et al., 2008 (their Fig. 4J)	55	116 (118)	158
ITC: Anderson et al., 2008 (their Fig. 4S)	63	133 (158)	154
ITC: Woloszyn and Sheinberg, 2012 (their Fig. 4A)	80	142	164
ITC: Meyer et al., 2014 (their Fig. 5A)	57	110	182 (180)
ITC: Average across studies	67	121	155
V2: Current study (Fig. 2C)	30 (45)	100 (110)	113 (116)

The approach of taking measurements from population histograms was necessary as a means for including multiple studies (because most do not provide numeric latencies) and for equating the latency criterion across studies (because subtle variations in criterion can produce substantial changes in latency). Where a numeric estimate based on a statistical criterion is available, it is provided parenthetically after the estimate based on direct measurement. Note that attainment of statistical criterion is generally delayed relative to signal onset visible in population histograms.

Visual latency, Time following image onset at which firing rate rose above baseline; suppression latency, time at which novel-image-minus-familiar-image difference rose above zero; suppression half-height, time of attainment of half-peak height by the novel-image-minus-familiar-image signal.