{
  "paper": "kammer-2026-foveal-feedback",
  "claims": 24,
  "panels": {
    "total": [
      "fig1a",
      "fig1b",
      "fig1c",
      "fig2a",
      "fig2b",
      "fig3a",
      "fig3b",
      "fig3s1",
      "fig4a",
      "fig4b",
      "fig4s1"
    ],
    "orphan": [
      "fig1a",
      "fig1b",
      "fig3a",
      "fig3s1",
      "fig4a",
      "fig4s1"
    ],
    "figure_level": [
      "fig3",
      "fig4"
    ],
    "phantom": [],
    "pct": 45.5
  },
  "statistics": {
    "total": 31,
    "orphan": [
      "p =0.56",
      "t(27) = 14.74",
      "t(27) = 5.11",
      "t(27) = 0.49",
      "t(27) = 1.35",
      "t(27) = 2.43",
      "p <0.05",
      "p <0.01"
    ],
    "pct": 74.2
  },
  "spans": {
    "segmented": 212,
    "obligations": 60,
    "textual": 152,
    "accounted": 38,
    "pct": 63.3,
    "orphans": [
      {
        "uid": "results-003",
        "section": "results",
        "text": "To maximise statistical power, we implemented the paradigm using a block design ( Figure 1A ).",
        "stats": [],
        "panels": [
          "fig1a"
        ]
      },
      {
        "uid": "results-013",
        "section": "results",
        "text": "( A ) Illustration of one block of the experimental and control conditions, respectively.",
        "stats": [],
        "panels": [
          "fig1a"
        ]
      },
      {
        "uid": "results-017",
        "section": "results",
        "text": "( B ) Depiction of the four stimuli used in the experiment, which were matched in either visual shape (horizontal/vertical) or semantic category (animal/instrument).",
        "stats": [],
        "panels": [
          "fig1b"
        ]
      },
      {
        "uid": "results-021",
        "section": "results",
        "text": "To compare the experimental condition to activation elicited by direct foveal input, we included a control condition in which participants were instructed to fixate a point at the center of the screen, with the stimulus appearing directly in the center of the fovea ( Figure 1A , bottom).",
        "stats": [],
        "panels": [
          "fig1a"
        ]
      },
      {
        "uid": "results-023",
        "section": "results",
        "text": "To elucidate the content of the stimulus information fed back to foveal retinotopic areas, we used four different natural stimuli (one stimulus per block) allowing us to disentangle the nature of the representation in the foveal retinotopic cortex ( Figure 1B ).",
        "stats": [],
        "panels": [
          "fig1b"
        ]
      },
      {
        "uid": "results-044",
        "section": "results",
        "text": "Foveal feedback is sensitive to stimulus shape, not semantic category Our use of natural stimuli allowed us to test the effects of shape and category on decoding accuracy to better understand the nature of the information fed back to foveal areas ( Figure 3A ).",
        "stats": [],
        "panels": [
          "fig3a"
        ]
      },
      {
        "uid": "results-048",
        "section": "results",
        "text": "( A ) Schematic depiction of comparisons to assess the information content of the neural representations.",
        "stats": [],
        "panels": [
          "fig3a"
        ]
      },
      {
        "uid": "results-055",
        "section": "results",
        "text": "Figure 3\u2014figure supplement 1. Decoding stimulus content from all early foveal areas.",
        "stats": [],
        "panels": [
          "fig3s1"
        ]
      },
      {
        "uid": "results-070",
        "section": "results",
        "text": "We focused on three regions that have consistently been associated with eye movements and object representations: Frontal eye fields (FEF) ( Paus, 1996 ; Vernet et al., 2014 ), intraparietal sulcus (IPS) ( Andersen et al., 1992 ; Andersen, 1989 ), and lateral occipital area (LO) ( Kawawaki et al., 2006 ; Figure 4A ).",
        "stats": [],
        "panels": [
          "fig4a",
          "fig3s1f",
          "fig3s1e"
        ]
      },
      {
        "uid": "results-077",
        "section": "results",
        "text": "In contrast, we found no significant association between peripheral decoding and any of the ROIs (FEF: t(27) = 0.49, p =1.0; IPS: t(27) = 1.35, p =0.56; LO: t(27) = 2.43, p =0.07).",
        "stats": [
          "t(27) = 0.49",
          "p =1.0",
          "t(27) = 1.35",
          "p =0.56",
          "t(27) = 2.43",
          "p =0.07"
        ],
        "panels": []
      },
      {
        "uid": "results-078",
        "section": "results",
        "text": "These findings confirm that our main effects were not simply explained by global brain fluctuations or signal-to-noise ratio, since under those conditions, we would have expected a similar relationship between foveal and peripheral decoding as in the experimental condition ( Figure 4\u2014figure supplement 1 ).",
        "stats": [],
        "panels": [
          "fig4s1"
        ]
      },
      {
        "uid": "results-080",
        "section": "results",
        "text": "( A ) Cortical masks used in the ROI analyses.",
        "stats": [],
        "panels": [
          "fig4a"
        ]
      },
      {
        "uid": "results-084",
        "section": "results",
        "text": "Figure 4\u2014figure supplement 1. Parametric modulation analysis in the control condition.",
        "stats": [],
        "panels": [
          "fig4s1"
        ]
      },
      {
        "uid": "results-085",
        "section": "results",
        "text": "We conducted the same parametric modulation analysis on the control condition (n=28).",
        "stats": [
          "n=28"
        ],
        "panels": []
      },
      {
        "uid": "results-088",
        "section": "results",
        "text": "Peripheral decoding was not associated with significant changes in any of the region of interests (ROIs) (FEF: t(27) = 0.49, p =1.0; IPS: t(27) = 1.35, p =0.56; LO: t(27) = 2.43, p =0.07).",
        "stats": [
          "t(27) = 0.49",
          "p =1.0",
          "t(27) = 1.35",
          "p =0.56",
          "t(27) = 2.43",
          "p =0.07"
        ],
        "panels": []
      },
      {
        "uid": "discussion-025",
        "section": "discussion",
        "text": "This explanation does not apply to the effect observed in the present study, since there never was a stimulus presented in the fovea, so remapping of spatial attention to the fovea (as in Rolfs et al., 2011 , Figure 5) would not suffice to explain the data.",
        "stats": [],
        "panels": [
          "fig5"
        ]
      },
      {
        "uid": "captions-020",
        "section": "captions",
        "text": "( B ) Decoding accuracies for all comparisons using data from foveal regions of V1 and from the lateral occipital area (LO) (n=28).",
        "stats": [
          "n=28"
        ],
        "panels": []
      },
      {
        "uid": "captions-023",
        "section": "captions",
        "text": "[panels detected: a, b] === Figure 3s1 === Figure 3\u2014figure supplement 1. Decoding stimulus content from all early foveal areas.",
        "stats": [],
        "panels": [
          "fig3s1"
        ]
      },
      {
        "uid": "captions-029",
        "section": "captions",
        "text": "( B ) Results of the ROI analyses comparing neural activation as a function of foveal and peripheral decoding in three key areas related to eye movements (n=28).",
        "stats": [
          "n=28"
        ],
        "panels": []
      },
      {
        "uid": "captions-031",
        "section": "captions",
        "text": "[panels detected: a, b] === Figure 4s1 === Figure 4\u2014figure supplement 1. Parametric modulation analysis in the control condition.",
        "stats": [],
        "panels": [
          "fig4s1"
        ]
      },
      {
        "uid": "captions-032",
        "section": "captions",
        "text": "We conducted the same parametric modulation analysis on the control condition (n=28).",
        "stats": [
          "n=28"
        ],
        "panels": []
      },
      {
        "uid": "captions-035",
        "section": "captions",
        "text": "Peripheral decoding was not associated with significant changes in any of the region of interests (ROIs) (FEF: t(27) = 0.49, p =1.0; IPS: t(27) = 1.35, p =0.56; LO: t(27) = 2.43, p =0.07).",
        "stats": [
          "t(27) = 0.49",
          "p =1.0",
          "t(27) = 1.35",
          "p =0.56",
          "t(27) = 2.43",
          "p =0.07"
        ],
        "panels": []
      }
    ]
  }
}