Note to users. If you're seeing this message, it means that your browser cannot find this page's style/presentation instructions -- or possibly that you are using a browser that does not support current Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing, and what you can do to make your experience of our site the best it can be.

Science 5 October 2007:
Vol. 318. no. 5847, p. 44
DOI: 10.1126/science.1145017
Prev | Table of Contents | Next

Technical Comments

Response to Comment on "Top-Down Versus Bottom-Up Control of Attention in the Prefrontal and Posterior Parietal Cortices"

Earl K. Miller* and Timothy J. Buschman

The Picower Institute for Learning and Memory, RIKEN-MIT Neuroscience Research Center, and Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA.


Figure 1 Fig. 1. Reproduction of figure 1 in (1). Contrary to (1), we reported earliest neurons, not average latencies, and here plot our actual averages. Other erroneous values have also been corrected (see text). Horizontal bars indicate 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of our values. Schall et al. were concerned that our LIP pop-out target selection was too early after array onset (top, white circle) and our FEF target selection before the saccade was too late (bottom, white/gray squares), but our averages actually align with previous work. Ours was the only study of LIP target selection during search (gray circles), and the only other study of LIP presaccadic target selection (bottom) during pop-out used their own arbitrary latency criterion, whereas we (white circle, bottom) used mutual information analysis, so there is no relevant comparison to our values. [View Larger Version of this Image (21K GIF file)]
 

To Advertise     Find Products

Science. ISSN 0036-8075 (print), 1095-9203 (online)