Extended Data Fig. 2: Topographic map weighting and dependence on FDR.

a, Un-weighted retinotopic distance distributions of responders. These distributions are averages across all experiments. Data shown in Fig. 2c,d are weighted, where the responder retinotopic distribution obtained for each stimulation group is weighted by the corresponding “all neurons” distribution for that stimulation group. b, Un-weighted distance distributions of responders (as in a) for one example stimulation group (across-area facilitated and suppressed followers after LM photostimulation). c, Un-weighted distance distributions of locally facilitated responders and target locations. Dashed lines s.e.m. across stimulation groups. d, Topographic biases do not depend on FDR. Top left, the difference between un-weighted retinotopic distance distributions for facilitated feedback responders and their corresponding “all neurons” distributions. Bias across distance changes gradually as a function of FDR. Right, the integral of the difference plotted on the left as a function of FDR (mean ± s.d., n = 129 stimulation groups). e, Each dot is the centroid of the retinotopic locations of responders recruited by one stimulation group (only stimulation groups with ≥ 1 across border responder, Feedback: n = 51/74/103 groups (FDR 2.5%, 5%, 10%) facilitated, n = 64/90/106 suppressed; Feedforward: n = 42/63/112 facilitated, n = 61/83/116 suppressed). Responder distributions are displaced between facilitated and suppressed responders in the feedback direction but not in the feedforward direction (see also Fig. 2; Wilcoxon rank sum test). This comparison remains significant across different FDR thresholds for feedback.