9, P > 0.1 Z-IETD-FMK in vivo for area, F2,360 = 0.54, P > 0.5 for epoch). The results indicate that the Fano factor was equivalent in the two areas and the different contribution of the two areas on behavioral choice could not be accounted for by a difference in response variability between areas. Analysis of choice probability in the delayed match-to-sample task revealed

systematic differences between the effects of neuronal activity in each area on behavior; however, the nature of errors in this task could involve multiple factors. As the monkeys were only allowed to make behavioral responses after a delay and a subsequent match/non-match stimulus presentation, error responses could be caused by a target discrimination failure, or failure to maintain the location of the salient stimulus Trametinib datasheet in memory. To test more directly whether the relationship between neuronal activity and detection of the salient stimulus differed in the parietal and prefrontal cortex we analysed choice probability in a reaction-time version of the task (Fig. 1C). In this task variant, the monkeys were trained to report the presence or absence of the salient

stimulus as soon as the stimulus array was presented. When the salient stimulus was present (Go trials), the animals were required to release the lever as fast as possible to receive a reward. When the salient stimulus was absent (NoGo trials), the monkeys were required to keep holding the lever. A reward was delivered after 0.8 s of continuing to hold the lever in this case. Analysis of choice probability in this task allowed us therefore to determine the influence of neuronal activity in detecting the salient target per se. This task had three difficulty levels using the same color scheme as the delayed match-to-sample task (Fig. 1D, dotted box). Error trials were categorized into two groups: (i) miss trials in which the monkeys did not release the lever when the salient stimulus was presented (which should have been Go trials) and (ii) false alarm trials

in which the monkeys falsely Etoposide in vivo reported the presence of the salient stimulus when it was not presented (which should have been NoGo trials). We again identified neurons with at least three error trials per condition, resulting in a total of 17 dlPFC neurons and 14 LIP neurons that were used for this analysis. Behavioral performances in the sessions of the dlPFC and LIP recordings were not significantly different (61 and 57% for the level 3 trials, respectively; t-test, t12 = 1.80, P > 0.09). Choice probability was computed using trials of the most difficult levels (level 3) with at least three error trials. Time-resolved choice probabilities were computed for Go trials when the salient stimulus appeared in the neuron’s preferred location (correct detections vs. miss trials). Choice probabilities were computed separately for all NoGo trials pooled (based on false alarms vs. correct rejections).