1. Direct Two-Dimensional Access to the Spatial Location of Covert Attention in Macaque Prefrontal Cortex 
Elaine Astrand, Claire Wardak, Pierre Baraduc, Suliann Ben Hamed 
Current Biology 
Volume 26, Issue 13, Pages (July 2016)
DOI: /j.cub
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

2. Figure 1 Task Description and Behavior
(A) 100% validity cued luminance change detection task with temporal distractors. Monkeys needed to hold a bar and fixate on a central cross on the screen for a trial to be initiated. The monkeys received a liquid reward for releasing the bar 200 to 700 ms after target presentation.
(B) Recording sites. On each session, 24-contact recording probes were placed in each FEF.
(C) Behavioral performance. Green, exogenous blocks; yellow, endogenous blocks. Left, median proportion of trials and associated median absolute deviations over all sessions (n = 15); right, median reaction times and associated median absolute deviations over all sessions. Dark-gray bars correspond to hit trials, light-gray bars to miss trials, and medium-gray bars to false-alarm trials.
Current Biology  , DOI: ( /j.cub )
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

3. Figure 2
Probability Maps for the Decoding of the (x,y) Position of Spatial Attention
(A) Probability map for an individual session (monkey M1, session 2, targets at ± 10°).
(B) Conjunction map of mean Z scores (total n = 15) for the two monkeys.
Maps correspond either to the exogenous (green) or endogenous (yellow) cued target-detection task. Each map represents the spatial locations that are statistically over-represented (red color scale; p < 0.01) or under-represented (blue color scale; p < 0.01) with respect to chance (as defined from a random permutation analysis) when decoding the spatial allocation of attention from the neuronal population response 200 to 100 ms prior to target presentation. Maps are shown for each possible location of the cue (cue 1, upper-right quadrant; cue 2, upper-left quadrant; cue 3, lower-left quadrant; cue 4, lower-right quadrant). For the conjunction maps, distances were normalized so that cued locations are mapped onto a horizontal and vertical eccentricity of ±1. See also Figures S1A and S1B.
Current Biology  , DOI: ( /j.cub )
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

4. Figure 3 Linking (x,y) Attention Decoding to Behavior
(A) Average classification performance (±SE) of the spatial location of attention, 200 to 100 ms before target presentation, in correct (dark gray), miss (light gray), and false-alarm (medium gray) trials for the exogenous (green) and endogenous task (yellow).
(B) Normalized distance between (x,y) decoding and target locations, 150 to 50 ms before target presentation, plotted against the ratio of misses over correct trials.
(C) Normalized distance between (x,y) decoding and distractor locations, 150 to 50 ms before distractor presentation, plotted against the ratio of false alarms over correct trials.
Black, monkey M1; red, monkey M2. Solid lines correspond to an orthogonal regression fit. Statistical analyses were carried out using Spearman’s correlation. See also Figures S1 and S2.
Current Biology  , DOI: ( /j.cub )
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

5. Figure 4
Neuronal Signatures Predict the Production of Error Trials, Whether Misses or False Alarms
(A) Distractibility. Average (±SE) proportion of trials for which the position of attention was decoded at the correct position before distractor presentation and at the distractor position after its presentation. Asterisks indicate statistical significance as assessed by Wilcoxon paired test with Bonferroni correction (n = 4 tests); ∗p < 0.5, ∗∗p < 0.01, and ∗∗∗p <
(B) Encoding of cue position as a function of trial outcome. Average classification performance (±SE) of cue position encoding (100 to 200 ms after cue presentation) over all sessions (n = 15) is shown.
(C) Average intra-hemispheric noise correlations separated by trial outcome, as a function of time, successively aligned on fixation onset, cue onset, and target onset. Miss and false-alarm trials are pooled for the exogenous task (medium gray). Statistical difference is shown between the following: hits and all error trials for the exogenous task (horizontal medium-gray line, upper panel; p < 0.05,), and between hits and misses (horizontal light-gray line, lower panel; p < 0.05); hits and false alarms (horizontal medium-gray line, lower panel; p < 0.05); miss and false-alarm trials (horizontal black line, lower panel; p < 0.05) for the endogenous task.
(D) Average intra-hemispheric noise correlations during the endogenous task as a function of immediate reward history (continuous line, previous trial was correct; dashed line, previous trial was an error trial) for hit trials (dark gray) and error trials (light gray), as a function of time, aligned on the onset of the fixation point. Horizontal dark-gray line, statistical differences (p < 0.05) between hit trials preceded by error trials and hit trials preceded by hit trials; horizontal medium-gray line, statistical differences (p < 0.05) between hit trials preceded by error trials and error trials preceded by hit trials (note that the difference in overall noise correlations between Figures 4D and 4C is due to the fact that the two analyses do not include the same number of trials). The shaded area corresponds to a time during the inter-trial interval during which the monkeys produced refoveation saccades, accounting for the focal change in noise correlation.
In all panels, hits are dark gray, false alarms are medium gray, and misses are light gray; pink indicates error trials in which the number of trials does not allow separation of miss and false-alarm trials. Green, exogenous task; yellow, endogenous task. See also Figures S3 and S4.
Current Biology  , DOI: ( /j.cub )
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions