Limits...
Faciotopy-A face-feature map with face-like topology in the human occipital face area.

Henriksson L, Mur M, Kriegeskorte N - Cortex (2015)

Bottom Line: The responses in V1 were best explained by low-level image properties of the stimuli.OFA, and to a lesser degree FFA, showed evidence for faciotopic organization.Faciotopy would be the first example, to our knowledge, of a cortical map reflecting the topology, not of a part of the organism itself (its retina in retinotopy, its body in somatotopy), but of an external object of particular perceptual significance.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, Cambridge, UK; Department of Neuroscience and Biomedical Engineering, Aalto University, Espoo, Finland. Electronic address: linda.henriksson@aalto.fi.

Show MeSH

Related in: MedlinePlus

Mean responses to different face-feature stimuli. Mean responses for the 12 different face-feature stimuli are shown separately for the three different conditions (black = 1 small feature, gray = 1 large feature, light gray = 9 parallel features) in (a) V1, (b) OFA, and (c) FFA. The error-bars indicate SEMs across the 12 subjects.
© Copyright Policy - CC BY-NC-ND
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4643680&req=5

fig3: Mean responses to different face-feature stimuli. Mean responses for the 12 different face-feature stimuli are shown separately for the three different conditions (black = 1 small feature, gray = 1 large feature, light gray = 9 parallel features) in (a) V1, (b) OFA, and (c) FFA. The error-bars indicate SEMs across the 12 subjects.

Mentions: Fig. 3 shows the mean fMRI response strengths for the face-feature stimuli in V1, OFA and FFA. The different conditions (small features, large features, 9 parallel features) are shown in different shades of gray. The V1-ROI covered eccentricities up-to the size of the 9-parallel-features stimulus, and thus it is expected that in V1 the small stimulus evokes the smallest response and the largest stimulus (9 parallel features) evokes the largest mean response (Fig. 3a). More interestingly, in OFA and FFA, this retinotopic effect was largely abolished and the three sizes of the face-feature stimuli evoked approximately equal-sized responses. The only exception is the mouth stimulus that evoked a larger response both in OFA (p = .027; signed-rank tests) and in FFA (p = .016; signed-rank tests) when presented in the nine parallel feature configuration compared to the one small feature presented at the centre of the screen. Overall, each face-feature stimulus evoked a clear response in all regions-of-interest.


Faciotopy-A face-feature map with face-like topology in the human occipital face area.

Henriksson L, Mur M, Kriegeskorte N - Cortex (2015)

Mean responses to different face-feature stimuli. Mean responses for the 12 different face-feature stimuli are shown separately for the three different conditions (black = 1 small feature, gray = 1 large feature, light gray = 9 parallel features) in (a) V1, (b) OFA, and (c) FFA. The error-bars indicate SEMs across the 12 subjects.
© Copyright Policy - CC BY-NC-ND
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4643680&req=5

fig3: Mean responses to different face-feature stimuli. Mean responses for the 12 different face-feature stimuli are shown separately for the three different conditions (black = 1 small feature, gray = 1 large feature, light gray = 9 parallel features) in (a) V1, (b) OFA, and (c) FFA. The error-bars indicate SEMs across the 12 subjects.
Mentions: Fig. 3 shows the mean fMRI response strengths for the face-feature stimuli in V1, OFA and FFA. The different conditions (small features, large features, 9 parallel features) are shown in different shades of gray. The V1-ROI covered eccentricities up-to the size of the 9-parallel-features stimulus, and thus it is expected that in V1 the small stimulus evokes the smallest response and the largest stimulus (9 parallel features) evokes the largest mean response (Fig. 3a). More interestingly, in OFA and FFA, this retinotopic effect was largely abolished and the three sizes of the face-feature stimuli evoked approximately equal-sized responses. The only exception is the mouth stimulus that evoked a larger response both in OFA (p = .027; signed-rank tests) and in FFA (p = .016; signed-rank tests) when presented in the nine parallel feature configuration compared to the one small feature presented at the centre of the screen. Overall, each face-feature stimulus evoked a clear response in all regions-of-interest.

Bottom Line: The responses in V1 were best explained by low-level image properties of the stimuli.OFA, and to a lesser degree FFA, showed evidence for faciotopic organization.Faciotopy would be the first example, to our knowledge, of a cortical map reflecting the topology, not of a part of the organism itself (its retina in retinotopy, its body in somatotopy), but of an external object of particular perceptual significance.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, Cambridge, UK; Department of Neuroscience and Biomedical Engineering, Aalto University, Espoo, Finland. Electronic address: linda.henriksson@aalto.fi.

Show MeSH
Related in: MedlinePlus