Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2011 Sep 9.
Published in final edited form as: J Neurosci. 2011 Mar 9;31(10):3589–3601. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4310-10.2011

Figure 6. Average response latencies show few differences across spatial and temporal stimulus factors.

Figure 6

Conventions follow Figure 5. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals for all panels. A. Mean response latencies (ms) are plotted for each temporal stimulation condition. The control refers to the contralateral stimulus, and numbers refer to the delay between the onset of the ipsilateral stimulus and the onset of the contralateral stimulus (second) from 0 to 500ms. No pairwise comparisons were significantly different. B. Mean response latencies are plotted for conditions in which the stimulation locations on the two hands were in matched locations on mirror digits (Mirror) and when the stimulation sites were located on different digits of the two hands (Non-mirror). The mean latencies were not significantly different. C. Mean response latencies are plotted for the relationships of the Response Field of the neurons to the stimulus locations. Latencies were longer when both stimuli were presented outside of the neuron’s Response Field (OUT_OUT) compared to when the contralateral stimulus was inside the Response Field (IN_OUT and CN_OUT). D. Mean response latencies are plotted for single units and multi-units, averaged across all stimulus conditions. Multi-units (MU) tended to have shorter latencies than single units (SU).