Results for dataset 1.

<p>Connectivity entries not in the original connectivity matrix have been marked with an asterisk.</p

Fit of the hierarchical model by Felleman & Van Essen (1991) compared with the network generated by our method using the dataset 2.

<p>Results graphed in the same manner as in <a href="http://www.ploscompbiol.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000159#pcbi-1000159-g005" target="_blank">Figure 5</a>.</p

Schematized models of the visual system compared.

<p>Areas are placed in a level according to the figures in the original publications. If levels were not present in the original model, areas were placed according to hodology <a href="http://www.ploscompbiol.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000159#pcbi.1000159-Nicolelis1" target="_blank">[29]</a>, i.e., according to the shortest possible route to connect two areas. The original model by Felleman & Van Essen contains many more levels and areas in the original (see <a href="http://www.ploscompbiol.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000159#pcbi-1000159-g002" target="_blank">Figure 2</a>).</p

Hierarchies of the visual system compared.

<p>Hierarchy proposed in this article with the areas from dataset 1.</p

Comparing the hierarchical model [3] with the networks generated by our method, with regard to latency.

<p>On the <i>x</i>-axis is the level in the hierarchy an area is in when only considering the shortest possible route from the source node. On the <i>y</i>-axis is the first spike latency in ms. In part A and D the level structure of the hierarchical model can be seen, in part B and D the same is plotted for the structure suggested by our results. Area names (indicated as in <a href="http://www.ploscompbiol.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000159#pcbi-1000159-g009" target="_blank">Figure 9</a>) are included for general reference, overlapping labels omitted for clarity. Areas in a higher level in a hierarchy should have longer latencies then areas lower in the hierarchy.</p

The fit of the hierarchical model by Felleman & Van Essen (1991) compared with the fit of the network generated by our method using dataset 1.

<p>The fit of the hierarchical model by Felleman & Van Essen (1991) compared with the fit of the network generated by our method using dataset 1.</p

Best-fit connectivity superimposed on an MR-image of the macaque brain.

<p>MR-image courtesy of R. Goebel and N. K. Logothetis, rendered with BrainVoyager software. Added connections are red.</p

Comparison of the distribution of areas (<i>y</i>-axis) over the levels in the hierarchy (<i>x</i>-axis) in 100 solutions.

<p>On the <i>x</i>-axis is the average level an area is assigned to +/− two standard deviations. On the left side the distribution is given without the areas being constrained by the latency data. On the right the distribution is given when the timing constraints are used. The areas are indicated by their respective area names and parcellation schemes (as indicated in CoCoMac) separated by a hyphen.</p

Mean onset latencies in milliseconds (<i>y</i>-axis) of several areas in the visual system (<i>x</i>-axis).

<p>For each area, its level in the hierarchical model <a href="http://www.ploscompbiol.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000159#pcbi.1000159-Felleman1" target="_blank">[3]</a> is indicated between brackets. Data used from Schmolesky, Wang et al <a href="http://www.ploscompbiol.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000159#pcbi.1000159-Schmolesky1" target="_blank">[8]</a>.</p

Schematic overview of the method used.

<p>Schematic overview of the method used.</p