Table 2.
Subject | Hem | Ret | Ipsi | Angle | CvP | ITS | PvA |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A.A.B. | R | + | + | − | + | + | + |
L | + | + | − | +? | + | + | |
A.C.H. | R | + | + | + | + | +? | + |
L | + | + | − | + | + | + | |
A.R.W. | R | + | + | + | + | + | + |
L | + | + | + | + | + | + | |
D.J.H. | R | + | + | + | + | + | + |
L | + | + | + | + | + | + | |
R.F.D. | R | + | − | − | +? | +? | |
L | + | − | − | + | +? | ||
Total | 10/10 | 8/10 | 5/10 | 8/10 | 7/10 | 8/8 |
Assessment of MT+ subdivision for all subjects. Hem, Hemisphere (R, right; L, left); Ret, distinct retinotopic subregion (putative human MT); Ipsi, distinct ipsilaterally responsive subregion (putative human MST); Angle, clear phase map evident, indicating an orderly retinotopic map of the angular component of the visual field; CvP, central visual field represented ventral and/or posterior to peripheral representation; ITS, MT+ fell primarily within a dorsal/posterior limb of inferior temporal sulcus; PvA, MT was located posterior and/or ventral to MST. + indicates clear presence; +? indicates equivocal evidence; − indicates no clear evidence; blank fields in the PvA column could not be evaluated for two hemispheres because of failure to identify MST in subject R.F.D.