Article Figures & Data
Figures
- Figure 1.
Contextual gaze following task. An avatar appeared in the center of the screen together with four linearly arranged sets of objects (houses and hands). After a baseline fixation period, the portrait’s gaze shifted toward one specific target object simultaneously with an auditory contextual instruction specifying the object class of the target (“hand” or “house”) or not, i.e., remaining uninformative (“none”). While maintaining fixation, subjects needed to decide on the target and make a saccade to the chosen target after a go-signal which was indicated by the disappearance of the fixation dot.
- Figure 2.
Behavioral performance. Left, Boxplots (black and gray) showing the percentage of correct response in the localizer paradigm (dashed line depicts chance level performance, see Extended Data Fig. 2-1 for a description of the localizer paradigm). Right, Plots of correct responses in the contextual gaze following paradigm (weighted mean performance and weighted SD, dashed lines depict expected performance; blue: unambiguous, yellow: ambiguous-informative, salmon: ambiguous-uninformative).
- Figure 3.
Activation maps emphasizing the ROIs. Left column, Contrast gaze following > color matching (localizer paradigm) used to identify the GFP. Blue dots mark maximum activation on the group level closest to locations taken from literature [green dots (Marquardt et al., 2017) and cyan dots (Materna et al., 2008)], white dots mark the maximum activation of those locations which were identifiable on the individual level. Middle column, Contrast gaze following > baseline fixation (localizer paradigm) used to identify saccade-related activity in the hLIP closest to location taken from (cyan dot; Sereno et al., 2001). Blue and white dots mark again, group level and individual coordinates. Right column, ambiguous-uninformative > unambiguous (contextual gaze following paradigm). Blue and white dots mark the group level and individual locations of the maximum IFJ-activity. See Extended Data Figure 3-1 for tabular form of all activated regions of each contrast and Extended Data Figures 3-2, 3-3, 3-4 for the respective contrast maps.
- Figure 4.
Time courses of activation in the GFP and the hLIP. Time course of mean percent signal change in the contextual gaze following experiment in areas identified in the localizer experiment (error bars are SEM). Areas in which conditions showed significant differences are shaded (permutations test, q < 0.05). Vertical dashed lines represent the within trial events cue onset, go-signal, and blank fixation onset. See Figure 6 for the model-based analysis.
- Figure 5.
Time courses of activation in the IFJ. Time course of mean percent signal change during the contextual gaze following experiment of the IFJ (error bars are SEM). Areas in which conditions showed significant differences are shaded (permutations test, q < 0.05). Vertical dashed lines represent the within trial events cue onset, go-signal, and blank fixation onset. See Figure 6 for the model-based analysis.
- Figure 6.
Model-based analyses of time courses during the contextual gaze following experiment. Lines depict the posterior means of BOLD activity. Shaded areas comprise 95% Bayesian credible intervals. Vertical dashed lines represent the within trial events cue onset, go-signal, and blank fixation onset.
- Figure 7.
Group level result of the searchlight decoding analysis (t-map of classification accuracies, p < 0.001). Extended Data Figure 7-1 shows the distributions of individual accuracies for the ROIs used in the time course analysis.
Extended Data
Extended Data Figure 2-1
Description of the localizer paradigm. Download Figure 2-1, DOC file.
Extended Data Figure 3-1
List of activated brain areas. Download Figure 3-1, DOC file.
Extended Data Figure 3-2
Contrast map gaze following > color matching (p < 0.001, cluster size > 6 voxels). Download Figure 3-2, EPS file.
Extended Data Figure 3-3
Contrast map gaze following > baseline (p < 0.001, cluster size > 6 voxels). Download Figure 3-3, EPS file.
Extended Data Figure 3-4
Contrast map ambiguous-uninformative > unambiguous (p < 0.001, cluster size > 6 voxels). Download Figure 3-4, EPS file.
Extended Data Figure 7-1
Classification accuracy distributions across participants for the ROIs used in the time course analysis. Asterisks marking distributions significantly different from a classifier performing at chance level (Wilcoxon signed-rank test, p < 0.001). Download Figure 7-1, EPS file.
In this issue
