NN-A53599F reporting checklist.pdf

nature neuroscience | reporting checklist

March 2016

Corresponding Author:

D. Y. Tsao

Manuscript Number:

NN-A53599DF

Manuscript Type:

Article

# Main Figures:

# Supplementary Figures:

# Supplementary Tables:

# Supplementary Videos:

Reporting Checklist for Nature Neuroscience

This checklist is used to ensure good reporting standards and to improve the reproducibility of published results. For more inf

ormation, please

read

Reporting Life Sciences Research

Please note that in the event of publication, it is mandatory that authors include all relevant methodological and statistical

information in the

manuscript.



Statistics reporting, by figure

Please specify the following information for each panel reporting quantitative data, and where each item is reported (section

, e.g. Results, &

paragraph number).

Each figure legend should ideally contain an exact sample size (n) for each experimental group/condition, where n is an exact n

umber and not a

range, a clear definition of how n is defined (for example x cells from x slices from x animals from x litters, collected ov

er x days), a description of

the statistical test used, the results of the tests, any descriptive statistics and clearly defined error bars if applicable

For any experiments using custom statistics, please indicate the test used and stats obtained for each experiment.

Each figure legend should include a statement of how many times the experiment shown was replicated in the lab; the details o

f sample

collection should be sufficiently clear so that the replicability of the experiment is obvious to the reader.

For experiments reported in the text but not in the figures, please use the paragraph number instead of the figure number.

Note: Mean and standard deviation are not appropriate on small samples, and plotting independent data points is usually more in

formative.

When technical replicates are reported, error and significance measures reflect the experimental variability and not the variab

ility of the biological

process; it is misleading not to state this clearly.

TEST USED

DESCRIPTIVE STATS

(AVERAGE, VARIANCE)

P VALUE

DEGREES OF

FREEDOM &

F/t/z/R/ETC VALUE

FIGURE

NUMBER

WHICH TEST?

SECTION &

PARAGRAPH #

EXACT

VALUE

DEFINED?

SECTION &

PARAGRAPH #

REPORTED?

SECTION &

PARAGRAPH #

EXACT VALUE

SECTION &

PARAGRAPH #

VALUE

SECTION &

PARAGRAPH #

example

one-way

ANOVA

Fig.

legend

9, 9, 10,

mice from at least 3

litters/group

Methods

para 8

error bars are

mean +/- SEM

Fig.

legend

p = 0.044

Fig.

legend

F(3, 36) = 2.97

Fig. legend

example

results,

para 6

unpaired t-

test

Results

para 6

slices from 10 mice

Results

para 6

error bars are

mean +/- SEM

Results

para 6

p = 0.0006

Results

para 6

t(28) = 2.808

Results

para 6

Nature Neuroscience: doi:10.1038/nn.4527

nature neuroscience | reporting checklist

March 2016

TEST USED

DESCRIPTIVE STATS

(AVERAGE, VARIANCE)

P VALUE

DEGREES OF

FREEDOM &

F/t/z/R/ETC VALUE

FIGURE

NUMBER

WHICH TEST?

SECTION &

PARAGRAPH #

EXACT

VALUE

DEFINED?

SECTION &

PARAGRAPH #

REPORTED?

SECTION &

PARAGRAPH #

EXACT VALUE

SECTION &

PARAGRAPH #

VALUE

SECTION &

PARAGRAPH #

Pearson's

correlation

Fig.

legend

Results

para 5

10 sessions from

M1, 8 sessions

from M2

Fig.

legend

Results

para 5

Pearson

correlation

coefficient r:

same: -0.72064

different: 0.63676

Fig.

legend

Result

s para

same: 0.00074

different:

0.00449

Fig.

legend

Results

para 5

df: 16

not

reported

S4a

Pearson's

correlation

category:

faces

Fig.

legend

Results

para

9 sessions from

M1, 5 sessions

from M2

Fig.

legend

Results

para 10

Pearson

correlation

coefficient r:

same: -0.54319

different: 0.70014

Fig.

S4a

Fig.

legend

Result

s para

same:

0.044706

different:

0.0053008

Fig. S4a

Fig.

legend

Results

para 11

df: 12

not

reported

S4b

Pearson's

correlation

category:

apples

Fig.

legend

Results

para

9 sessions from

M1, 5 sessions

from M2

Fig.

legend

Results

para 11

Pearson

correlation

coefficient r:

same: 0.078589

different:

0.047032

Fig.

S4b

same: 0.78943

different:

0.87315

Fig. S4b

df: 12

not

reported

S4c

Pearson's

correlation

category:

citrus fruits

Fig.

legend

Results

para

9 sessions from

M1, 5 sessions

from M2

Fig.

legend

Results

para 11

Pearson

correlation

coefficient r:

same: -0.30954

different: 0.23053

Fig.

S4c

same: 0.2815

different:

0.42783

Fig. S4c

df: 12

not

reported

S4d

Pearson's

correlation

category:

pots

Fig.

legend

Results

para

9 sessions from

M1, 5 sessions

from M2

Fig.

legend

Results

para 11

Pearson

correlation

coefficient r:

same: 0.21906

different: 0.14998

Fig.

S4d

same: 0.45179

different:

0.660883

Fig. S4d

df: 12

not

reported

S4e

Pearson's

correlation

category:

clocks

Fig.

legend

Results

para

9 sessions from

M1, 5 sessions

from M2

Fig.

legend

Results

para 11

Pearson

correlation

coefficient r:

same: 0.051451

different: 0.24503

Fig.

S4e

same: 0.86133

different:

0.3985

Fig. S4e

df: 12

not

reported

S10a

3-way

ANOVA

Fig.

legend

2368

trials

1 session

Fig.

legend

not reported

trial type

p < 0.0001

Fig.

legend

F(1, 92) = 401.58

Fig

legend

S10a

3-way

ANOVA

continued

Fig.

legend

2368

trials

1 session

Fig.

legend

not reported

stimulation

p < 0.0001

Fig.

legend

F(3, 92) = 110.74

Fig.

legend

S10a

3-way

ANOVA

continued

Fig.

legend

2368

trials

1 session

Fig.

legend

not reported

identity

p = 0.0666

Fig.

legend

F(31, 92) = 1.51

Fig.

legend

S10a

3-way

ANOVA

continued

Fig.

legend

2368

trials

1 session

Fig.

legend

not reported

trial*stimulati

p < 0.0001

Fig.

legend

F(3, 92) = 39.75

Fig.

legend

S10a

3-way

ANOVA

continued

Fig.

legend

2368

trials

1 session

Fig.

legend

not reported

trial*identity

p = 0.0665

Fig.

legend

F(31, 92) = 1.51

Fig.

legend

S10a

3-way

ANOVA

continued

Fig.

legend

2368

trials

1 session

Fig.

legend

not reported

stimulation*id

enity

p = 0.6137

Fig.

legend

F(93, 92) = 0.94

Fig.

legend

S10b

3-way

ANOVA

Fig.

legend

2025

trials

1 session

Fig.

legend

not reported

trial type

p < 0.0001

Fig.

legend

F(1, 92) = 150.51

Fig.

legend

S10b

3-way

ANOVA

continued

Fig.

legend

2025

trials

1 session

Fig.

legend

not reported

stimulation

p < 0.0001

Fig.

legend

F(3, 92) = 57.88

Fig.

legend

Nature Neuroscience: doi:10.1038/nn.4527

nature neuroscience | reporting checklist

March 2016

S10b

3-way

ANOVA

continued

Fig.

legend

2025

trials

1 session

Fig.

legend

not reported

identity

p = 0.2937

Fig.

legend

F(31, 92) = 1.15

Fig.

legend

S10b

3-way

ANOVA

continued

Fig.

legend

2025

trials

1 session

Fig.

legend

not reported

trial*stimulati

p < 0.0001

Fig.

legend

F(3, 92) = 10.22

Fig.

legend

S10b

3-way

ANOVA

continued

Fig.

legend

2025

trials

1 session

Fig.

legend

not reported

trial*identity

p = 0.2846

Fig.

legend

F(31, 92) = 1.16

Fig.

legend

S10b

3-way

ANOVA

continued

Fig.

legend

2025

trials

1 session

Fig.

legend

not reported

stimulation*id

enity

p = 0.8079

Fig.

legend

F(93, 92) = 0.83

Fig.

legend

2a-g

Fisher's

Exact Test

Suppl.

Table 3

see Supplementary

Table 3

Suppl

Table 3

see

Supplementary

Table 3

Suppl

Table

see

Supplementar

y Table 3

Suppl

Table 3

see

Supplementary

Table 3

Suppl

Table 3

Suppl.

Table 4

see Supplementary

Table 4

Suppl.

Table 4

d prime, criterion c

Suppl.

Table

see

Supplementar

y Table 4

Suppl.

Table 4

see

Supplementary

Table 4

Suppl.

Table 4

4a,c-j

Fisher's

Exact Tests

Suppl.

Table 3

see Supplementary

Table 3

Suppl.

Table 3

see

Supplementary

Table 3

Suppl.

Table

see

Supplementar

y Table 3

Suppl.

Table 3

see

Supplementary

Table 3

Suppl.

Table 3

Fisher's

Exact Tests

Suppl.

Table 3

see Supplementary

Table 3

Suppl.

Table 3

see

Supplementary

Table 3

Suppl.

Table

see

Supplementar

y Table 3

Suppl.

Table 3

see

Supplementary

Table 3

Suppl.

Table 3

Fisher's

Exact Tests

Suppl.

Table 3

see Supplementary

Table 3

Suppl.

Table 3

see

Supplementary

Table 3

Suppl.

Table

see

Supplementar

y Table 3

Suppl.

Table 3

see

Supplementary

Table 3

Suppl.

Table 3

Fisher's

Exact Tests

Suppl.

Table 3

see Supplementary

Table 3

Suppl.

Table 3

see

Supplementary

Table 3

Suppl.

Table

see

Supplementar

y Table 3

Suppl.

Table 3

see

Supplementary

Table 3

Suppl.

Table 3

Fisher's

Exact Tests

Suppl.

Table 3

see Supplementary

Table 3

Suppl.

Table 3

see

Supplementary

Table 3

Suppl.

Table

see

Supplementar

y Table 3

Suppl.

Table 3

see

Supplementary

Table 3

Suppl.

Table 3

Fisher's

Exact Tests

Suppl.

Table 3

see Supplementary

Table 3

Suppl.

Table 3

see

Supplementary

Table 3

Suppl.

Table

see

Supplementar

y Table 3

Suppl.

Table 3

see

Supplementary

Table 3

Suppl.

Table 3

Fisher's

Exact Tests

Suppl.

Table 3

see Supplementary

Table 3

Suppl.

Table 3

see

Supplementary

Table 3

Suppl.

Table

see

Supplementar

y Table 3

Suppl.

Table 3

see

Supplementary

Table 3

Suppl.

Table 3

Fisher's

Exact Tests

Suppl.

Table 3

see Supplementary

Table 3

Suppl.

Table 3

see

Supplementary

Table 3

Suppl.

Table

see

Supplementar

y Table 3

Suppl.

Table 3

see

Supplementary

Table 3

Suppl.

Table 3

Fisher's

Exact Tests

Suppl.

Table 3

see Supplementary

Table 3

Suppl.

Table 3

see

Supplementary

Table 3

Suppl.

Table

see

Supplementar

y Table 3

Suppl.

Table 3

see

Supplementary

Table 3

Suppl.

Table 3

S10

Fisher's

Exact Tests

Suppl.

Table 5

see Supplementary

Table 5

Suppl.

Table 5

see

Supplementary

Table 5

Suppl.

Table

see

Supplementar

y Table 5

Suppl.

Table 5

see

Supplementary

Table 5

Suppl.

Table 5



Representative figures

1. Are any representative images shown (including Western blots and

immunohistochemistry/staining) in the paper?

If so, what figure(s)?

With the exception of Fig. 1, 3a, 7, Suppl. Fig. 4, 10, and 11, all

figures show the results of individual sessions per panel, so in a

sense all other figure show "representative" images. Reported

significances were always calculated per session. Supplementary

tables 1 and 3 give the results for all repetitions of the different

experiments.

Nature Neuroscience: doi:10.1038/nn.4527

nature neuroscience | reporting checklist

March 2016

2. For each representative image, is there a clear statement of

how many times this experiment was successfully repeated and a

discussion of any limitations in repeatability?

If so, where is this reported (section, paragraph #)?

Not explicitly; though we do make a point that the precise

stimulation position is important and does explain a large part of

the inter-session variance (see figure 3 and supplementary figure

4), as well as Results paragraphs 5 and 11. Supplementary tables 1

and 3 give the results for all repetitions of the different experiments

and Supplementary figure 1 shows for all patches and subjects the

results of individual experiments (together with average and

standard error of the mean).



Statistics and general methods

1. Is there a justification of the sample size?

If so, how was it justified?

Where (section, paragraph #)?

Even if no sample size calculation was performed, authors should

report why the sample size is adequate to measure their effect size.

As customary in non-human-primate research we report data from

two individuals. We report single-session data and assess the

significance of the relevant comparisons also per session. Since the

reported effect sizes are relatively large (up to a 90% change in

percentage points) and hence reach statistical significance easily

and the inter-session variance due to exact stimulation location was

quite large, we feel justified in reporting single session data instead

of averages which would "wash out" the location specificity of the

reported results.

2. Are statistical tests justified as appropriate for every figure?

Where (section, paragraph #)?

Since we mainly compare contingency tables of correct and

incorrect trials for different visual stimulus and electrical

microstimulation conditions, we have the choice of chi-square and

Fisher's exact test (FTE); since unlike the chi-square test, the FTE

works with small, sparse, or unbalanced data as encountered when

the performance approaches 100%, we used the FTE. See

subsection "Data analysis" under the "Methods" section.

a. If there is a section summarizing the statistical methods in

the methods, is the statistical test for each experiment

clearly defined?

Yes. We always used Fisher's exact test, except for figure 3a and

supplementary figure 4 were we report Pearson correlation results

b. Do the data meet the assumptions of the specific statistical

test you chose (e.g. normality for a parametric test)?

Where is this described (section, paragraph #)?

The main assumption of Fisher's exact test, independence of the

rows and column classifications, were met by our experimental

design in that we randomized the same percentage of trials for

microstimulation for all experimental categories.

c. Is there any estimate of variance within each group of data?

Is the variance similar between groups that are being

statistically compared?

Where is this described (section, paragraph #)?

Fisher's exact test works on contingency tables summarizing the

number of correct and incorrect trials per condition, we did not

calculate nor report variance estimates nor other descriptive

statistics over all sessions (with the exception of supplementary

figure 1 where we show all individual session results by subject and

patch as well as the averages and standard error of the means,

supplementary table 2 gives the number of sessions for each of the

groups)

d. Are tests specified as one- or two-sided?

All Fisher's exact tests were specified as two-sided.

e. Are there adjustments for multiple comparisons?

Since we only performed a pre-planned comparison between

microstimulation and non-microstimulation trials inside each

category (object identity times same-ness), or one test per

condition no multiple comparison adjustments were required.

Nature Neuroscience: doi:10.1038/nn.4527

nature neuroscience | reporting checklist

March 2016

3. To promote transparency,

Nature Neuroscience

has stopped allowing

bar graphs to report statistics in the papers it publishes. If you have

bar graphs in your paper, please make sure to switch them to dot-

plots (with central and dispersion statistics displayed) or to box-and-

whisker plots to show data distributions.

The reported bar graphs in our paper are not showing summary

statistics, so per bar there really is only one value and no associated

dispersion. We believe and have confirmed with our editor that our

bar graphs follow the spirit of Nature Neuroscience's policy quite

well.

4. Are criteria for excluding data points reported?

Was this criterion established prior to data collection?

Where is this described (section, paragraph #)?

We included all trials in which the animals did not break fixation

before the the choice targets appeared.

5. Define the method of randomization used to assign subjects (or

samples) to the experimental groups and to collect and process data.

If no randomization was used, state so.

Where does this appear (section, paragraph #)?

We fully randomized trails with 50% probability into same and

different identity trials. Electrical stimulation was delivered on 33%

of trials (trials were grouped into groups of six; within these six

trials, two had no microstimulation, while four had

microstimulation 50% of the time, randomly chosen; we inserted

the two non-microstimulation trials to maintain electrode integrity

by avoiding long sequences of stimulation trials).

The randomization procedure is described under Methods

paragraph 5.

6. Is a statement of the extent to which investigator knew the group

allocation during the experiment and in assessing outcome included?

If no blinding was done, state so.

Where (section, paragraph #)?

No, not applicable.

7. For experiments in live vertebrates, is a statement of compliance with

ethical guidelines/regulations included?

Where (section, paragraph #)?

Yes; section "Methods" first paragraph.

8. Is the species of the animals used reported?

Where (section, paragraph #)?

Yes, Rhesus macaque; section Methods second paragraph.

9. Is the strain of the animals (including background strains of KO/

transgenic animals used) reported?

Where (section, paragraph #)?

No. Not applicable.

10. Is the sex of the animals/subjects used reported?

Where (section, paragraph #)?

M1. M2 Yes, male; under section "Methods" paragraph 2. M3, M4

also male not reported in text.

11. Is the age of the animals/subjects reported?

Where (section, paragraph #)?

No.

12. For animals housed in a vivarium, is the light/dark cycle reported?

Where (section, paragraph #)?

All animals were kept with a light cycle from 7:00 AM to 20:00 PM.

Not reported in the main text.

Nature Neuroscience: doi:10.1038/nn.4527

nature neuroscience | reporting checklist

March 2016

13. For animals housed in a vivarium, is the housing group (i.e. number of

animals per cage) reported?

Where (section, paragraph #)?

All animals were pair-housed. Not reported in the main text.

14. For behavioral experiments, is the time of day reported (e.g. light or

dark cycle)?

Where (section, paragraph #)?

Typically, experiments were performed in the light cycle during the

period from 9:00AM to 20:00 PM. Not reported in the main text.

15. Is the previous history of the animals/subjects (e.g. prior drug

administration, surgery, behavioral testing) reported?

Where (section, paragraph #)?

No.

a. If multiple behavioral tests were conducted in the same

group of animals, is this reported?

Where (section, paragraph #)?

No.

16. If any animals/subjects were excluded from analysis, is this reported?

Where (section, paragraph #)?

No animals were excluded from the analysis.

a. How were the criteria for exclusion defined?

Where is this described (section, paragraph #)?

Not applicable.

b. Specify reasons for any discrepancy between the number of

animals at the beginning and end of the study.

Where is this described (section, paragraph #)?

Not applicable.



Reagents

1. Have antibodies been validated for use in the system under study

(assay and species)?

No.

a. Is antibody catalog number given?

Where does this appear (section, paragraph #)?

Not applicable.

b. Where were the validation data reported (citation,

supplementary information, Antibodypedia)?

Where does this appear (section, paragraph #)?

Not applicable.

2. Cell line identity

a. Are any cell lines used in this paper listed in the database of

commonly misidentified cell lines maintained by

ICLAC

and

NCBI Biosample

Where (section, paragraph #)?

No.

Nature Neuroscience: doi:10.1038/nn.4527

nature neuroscience | reporting checklist

March 2016

b. If yes, include in the Methods section a scientific

justification of their use--indicate here in which section and

paragraph the justification can be found.

Not applicable.

c. For each cell line, include in the Methods section a

statement that specifies:

- the source of the cell lines

- have the cell lines been authenticated? If so, by which

method?

- have the cell lines been tested for mycoplasma

contamination?

Where (section, paragraph #)?

Not applicable.



Data deposition

Provide a Data availability statement in the Methods section under "Data

availability", which should include, where applicable:

• Accession codes for deposited data

• Other unique identifiers (such as DOIs and hyperlinks for any other

datasets)

• At a minimum, a statement confirming that all relevant data are

available from the authors

• Formal citations of datasets that are assigned DOIs

• A statement regarding data available in the manuscript as source

data

• A statement regarding data available with restrictions

See our

data availability and data citations policy page

for more

information.

Data deposition in a public repository is mandatory for:

a. Protein, DNA and RNA sequences

b. Macromolecular structures

c. Crystallographic data for small molecules

d. Microarray data

Deposition is strongly recommended for many other datasets for which

structured public repositories exist; more details on our data policy

are available

here

. We encourage the provision of other source data

in supplementary information or in unstructured repositories such as

Figshare

and

Dryad

We encourage publication of Data Descriptors (see

Scientific Data

) to

maximize data reuse.

Where is the Data Availability statement provided (section, paragraph

#)?

For all reported sessions (including those sessions that where only

included in the regression analysis for Fig. 3 and Suppl. Fig 3 as

Supplementary Tables 2; this table contains for each session the

absolute numbers of hits and misses for all combinations of same/

different and microstimulation/no microstimulation. We believe

that by including this data interested parties will be able to re-

analyze this data set in the future.

Nature Neuroscience: doi:10.1038/nn.4527

nature neuroscience | reporting checklist

March 2016



Computer code/software

Any custom algorithm/software that is central to the methods must be supplied by the authors in a usable and readable form for

readers at the

time of publication. However, referees may ask for this information at any time during the review process.

1. Identify all custom software or scripts that were required to conduct

the study and where in the procedures each was used.

All visual stimulation and behavioral control was performed using

Shay Ohayon's Kofiko; electrode trajectory planning was performed

using Shay Ohayon's Planner; see https://github.com/shayo for

repositories of both. Data analysis was performed by custom

matlab scripts.

2. If computer code was used to generate results that are central to the

paper's conclusions, include a statement in the Methods section

under "

Code availability

" to indicate whether and how the code can

be accessed. Include version information as necessary and any

restrictions on availability.

All analysis was performed using standard statistics functions

supplied as part of Matlab's toolboxes. Fisher's exact test was

included as implemented by Giuseppe Cardillo

and distributed as https://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/

fileexchange/26883-myfisher



Human subjects

1. Which IRB approved the protocol?

Where is this stated (section, paragraph #)?

Only non-human primates were used, no human subjects.

2. Is demographic information on all subjects provided?

Where (section, paragraph #)?

Not applicable.

3. Is the number of human subjects, their age and sex clearly defined?

Where (section, paragraph #)?

Not applicable.

4. Are the inclusion and exclusion criteria (if any) clearly specified?

Where (section, paragraph #)?

Not applicable.

5. How well were the groups matched?

Where is this information described (section, paragraph #)?

Not applicable.

6. Is a statement included confirming that informed consent was

obtained from all subjects?

Where (section, paragraph #)?

Not applicable.

7. For publication of patient photos, is a statement included confirming

that consent to publish was obtained?

Where (section, paragraph #)?

Not applicable.

Nature Neuroscience: doi:10.1038/nn.4527

nature neuroscience | reporting checklist

March 2016



fMRI studies

For papers reporting functional imaging (fMRI) results please ensure that these minimal reporting guidelines are met and that a

ll this

information is clearly provided in the methods:

1. Were any subjects scanned but then rejected for the analysis after the

data was collected?

No. In total four animals were scanned; two were used for the main

experiments; the third was used to illustrate the effect of micro-

stimulation current on the volume of activated tissue; the fourth

was used to elucidate the response of the face patches to

abstracted and veridical house images.

a. If yes, is the number rejected and reasons for rejection

described?

Where (section, paragraph #)?

Not applicable.

2. Is the number of blocks, trials or experimental units per session and/

or subjects specified?

Where (section, paragraph #)?

Except for the combined fMRI-microstim experiment in M3, we do

not report the fMRI specifics as these have been reported in depth

in our earlier papers cited; in M1 and M2 we only used fMRI to

localize the face patches in each individual (for confirmation of

stimulation locations we only used structural MRI); in M4 we

localized the face patches as well as the responses to abstracted

and veridical houses.

3. Is the length of each trial and interval between trials specified?

No. We always used simple blocked designes with on-off

periods of

around 30 seconds.

4. Is a blocked, event-related, or mixed design being used? If applicable,

please specify the block length or how the event-related or mixed

design was optimized.

All fMRI experiments were performed as blocked designs.

5. Is the task design clearly described?

Where (section, paragraph #)?

For localization experiments the animals were only required to keep

fixation on a small fixation point on a screen, while passively viewing

images presented centrally (diameter 5-7 degree visual angle).

6. How was behavioral performance measured?

Fixation was controlled by an ISCAN eye tracker.

7. Is an ANOVA or factorial design being used?

No.

8. For data acquisition, is a whole brain scan used?

If not, state area of acquisition.

Data for M1, M2, and M4 were acquired for the whole brain. For

M3 (figure 3) we used a field of view that contained the whole

temporal lobe roughly centered around the stimulation electrode as

the goal of this experiment was to compare the local spread of fMRI

activation caused by different stimulation currents.

a. How was this region determined?

M3: FOV was centered around the stimulation cite to allow for the

maximum possible activation spread in all directions

Nature Neuroscience: doi:10.1038/nn.4527

nature neuroscience | reporting checklist

March 2016

9. Is the field strength (in Tesla) of the MRI system stated?

Yes, nominally 3Tesla, or 2.89362 Tesla as reported by the scann

er.

a. Is the pulse sequence type (gradient/spin echo, EPI/spiral)

stated?

No, we used standard Siemens gradient echo EPI sequences with a

isotropic voxelsize of 1.0 mm for M1, M2, and M4. Since we used

the same localization system used in earlier studies we refer to

those for details since nothing was changed. For M3 we used a

voxelsize of 1.5 mm isotriopic, and a a multi-gradient echo EPI.

b. Are the field-of-view, matrix size, slice thickness, and TE/TR/

flip angle clearly stated?

For M1, M2, and M4 see referenced papers. For M3 three a multi-

echo sequence (EPI, TR 4 s, TE 25 ms, 64 x 64 matrix, 28 slices at 1.5

mm3 isotropic resolution 136 Volumes per run).

10. Are the software and specific parameters (model/functions,

smoothing kernel size if applicable, etc.) used for data processing and

pre-processing clearly stated?

Yes, all fMRI analysis was performed usig Fressurfer's fs-fast data

processind stream.

11. Is the coordinate space for the anatomical/functional imaging data

clearly defined as subject/native space or standardized stereotaxic

space, e.g., original Talairach, MNI305, ICBM152, etc? Where (section,

paragraph #)?

For each animal we used a reference structural scan to which all

other MRI-data (localizer fMRI data as well as per session structural

MRI electrode position documentation data) was co-registered. We

do not report group analysis results.

12. If there was data normalization/standardization to a specific space

template, are the type of transformation (linear vs. nonlinear) used

and image types being transformed clearly described? Where (section,

paragraph #)?

All registrations to each animal's reference structural data were

performed as affine registrations. No inter-animal normalization

was performed, since the goal of the localization experiments was

to map the face patch system in each subject to allow electrode

targeting.

13. How were anatomical locations determined, e.g., via an automated

labeling algorithm (AAL), standardized coordinate database (Talairach

daemon), probabilistic atlases, etc.?

Face patches were individually localized for all four animals and the

resulting 3-dimensional "maps" were the used for electrode

trajectory planning and confirmation of documented stimulation

positions.

14. Were any additional regressors (behavioral covariates, motion etc)

used?

We added regressors to control motion correlated signal and for

localization experiments we excluded individual time points / TRs

during which the animals did not fixate for at least 70% of the TR

duration (to account for the delay in the HRF we accounted each

fixation sample not at the actual measurement time, but shifted it

by 2.4 seconds forward in time, the time it took the HRF to peak).

15. Is the contrast construction clearly defined?

No. We simply compared blocks in which we presented faces or

houses with blocks in which we presented different categories of

non-face non-house objects.

16. Is a mixed/random effects or fixed inference used?

We only performed analyses on the per-individual level.

a. If fixed effects inference used, is this justified?

17. Were repeated measures used (multiple measurements per subject)? No.

a. If so, are the method to account for within subject

correlation and the assumptions made about variance

clearly stated?

Not applicable.

Nature Neuroscience: doi:10.1038/nn.4527

nature neuroscience | reporting checklist

March 2016

18. If the threshold used for inference and visualization in figures varies, is

this clearly stated?

The threshold for figure 1a, b is given in the legend, the threshold

for supplementary figure 6 (threshold of 1.0000e-10 and a

saturation value of 1.0000e-20 with 1.0000e-10 corresponding to

<= 0.0005 Bonferroni corrected) is not specified in the text, but is

the same threshold as used in figure 1b just with as as graded

overlay to illustrate that the electrode tip ended in the core of the

face patch (or rather on of the central voxels with really high

significance). For Suppl. Fig. 7 we also used a threshold of

1.0000e-10 corresponding to <= 0.0005 Bonferroni corrected. For

Fig. 7 we report lower thresholds for M2. All fMRI figures show the

threshold and saturation points of the p-maps in color scale bars in

units of uncorrected negative decadic logarithm of p.

19. Are statistical inferences corrected for multiple comparisons?

The figure legend for figure 1a, b state the Bonferroni cor

rected

threshold equivalent of the lower threshold.

a. If not, is this labeled as uncorrected?

20. Are the results based on an ROI (region of interest) analysis?

For FIg. 7c and Suppl. Fig. 7c we report the average beta-v

alue for

individual face-patches.

a. If so, is the rationale clearly described?

Yes.

b. How were the ROI’s defined (functional vs anatomical

localization)?

Face patch ROI's were based on localization fMRI mapping

experiments in each individual monkey.

21. Is there correction for multiple comparisons within each voxel?

We only report uncorrected values in the figures. Based on

the

number of brain voxels per volume (M1, M2, M3 <= 174893 out of

497664; M3 47641 out of 114688) the worst case Bonferroni

correction 0.05/174893 will result in an uncorrected p <=

2.8589e-07. So with the exception of Fig. 7 b) all reported overlay

saturation values are well above the Bonferroni threshold for 0.05.

22. For cluster-wise significance, is the cluster-defining threshold and the

corrected significance level defined?

No cluster-wise analysis was performed, but voxel-wise.



Additional comments

Additional Comments

Nature Neuroscience: doi:10.1038/nn.4527