Fig. 2: PF locations systematically vary in size and location across electrodes and participants but are stable over time.

a, Example PFs from one electrode during one session from each participant. The crosses denote the respective centroids. b, The PFs from the same electrode as in a but across all sessions (n = 8, 43 and 5 for C1, P2 and P3, respectively). c, The pixel frequency computed for the same electrodes as in a and b across all sessions. d, Hand regions over which each participant reported a sensation across all electrodes. The shading indicates whether each pixel’s frequency was above (dark) or below (light) the 33% threshold. e, The area of the hand over which a sensation was evoked (union of PFs across electrodes, after thresholding) for each participant. f, The distribution of individual PF sizes (after thresholding) for each participant (n = 62, 63 and 63, respectively). The box and whiskers show the 5th, 25th, 50th, 75th and 95th percentiles. g, The distance between the centroid of the single-day PF and the aggregate centroid for each electrode, averaged across electrodes. The line denotes the mean, and the shaded area denotes the s.d. h, The area of each percept after thresholding predicts mean distance between single-day PF centroid and aggregate PF centroid for each electrode. The dashed line denotes the best fit. i, The mean centroid distance when reports were collected within a single day compared with that computed across years for a subset of electrodes. The dashed line denotes unity.