By computing the PRIP. A, Computation of the PRIP. The bar graphs display single-image activation of right FFA selective regions are activated more strongly (defined at 128 voxels in one subject) for each session. Colored circles connected by black arrows CBR-5884 site highlight four inverted pairs (i.e., by some images of their preferred catenonpreferred image ranked before preferred image) in session 1. Only 1 of the 4 inverted pairs replicates in session 2, the other 3 gory than by others, i.e., they show a revert to category-preferential order (i.e., preferred image ranked before nonpreferred image). If these 4 example pairs were the graded activation profile for images of only inverted pairs in session 1, the PRIP would be 0.25. Color coding is the same as in Figure 1. B, Results of statistical group analysis of the PRIP for category-selective regions FFA and PPA and control regions hIT and EVC. The PRIP was averaged across subjects, their preferred category. These effects are allowing for different particular image pairs to be inverted in each subject. Since inverted pairs are defined based on the notion of not confined to category-selective recategory preference, the analysis was based on nonface ace pairs for FFA and nonplace lace pairs for PPA. hIT and EVC do not gions: hIT and EVC show graded withinhave a strong category preference and were tested for both types of pairs, serving as a control for category-selective regions. We category activation profiles as well, used a two-sided label-randomization test to determine whether the PRIP differed significantly from 0.5; the level we expect under especially for places. the null hypothesis that the apparently inverted pairs actually have equal activation. A PRIP significantly 0.5 indicates that most The presence of within-category actiinverted pairs replicate. A PRIP significantly 0.5 indicates that most inverted pairs revert to category-preferential order. Results vation differences naturally leads us to ask show that most inverted pairs revert to category-preferential order for FFA and PPA for most ROI sizes. The p values were corrected how these differences can be explained. for multiple comparisons as described in Figure 1. Black boxes highlight the ROI sizes used in Figures 1 (FFA and PPA) and 2 (hIT and Previous studies have suggested that huEVC). man faces might activate FFA more strongly than animal faces (Kanwisher et within-category ranking (Fig. 5), which we estimated by rank al., 1999). This raises the possibility that graded within-category correlating within-category activation profiles across sessions profiles reflect the existence of subcategories that elicit different (Fig. 5A). If the ranking for a category of images (e.g., faces) was levels of activation. For faces, we order Saroglitazar Magnesium investigated this possibility by replicable across sessions, this would indicate that some of these performing a one-sided t test on the within-face activation estiimages consistently activated the region more strongly than othmates averaged across subjects and sessions, comparing activaers. Group results are shown in Figure 5B. tion to human versus animal faces in each ROI. This analysis Left and right FFA showed replicable ranking for faces, espeshowed that left FFA at the smallest two ROI sizes was indeed cially at smaller ROI sizes (Fig. 5B, top). This indicates that some activated more strongly by human than animal faces (t(22) 3.6, p 0.01 for 10 voxels; t(22) 2.8, p 0.05 for 23 voxels; p values faces consi.By computing the PRIP. A, Computation of the PRIP. The bar graphs display single-image activation of right FFA selective regions are activated more strongly (defined at 128 voxels in one subject) for each session. Colored circles connected by black arrows highlight four inverted pairs (i.e., by some images of their preferred catenonpreferred image ranked before preferred image) in session 1. Only 1 of the 4 inverted pairs replicates in session 2, the other 3 gory than by others, i.e., they show a revert to category-preferential order (i.e., preferred image ranked before nonpreferred image). If these 4 example pairs were the graded activation profile for images of only inverted pairs in session 1, the PRIP would be 0.25. Color coding is the same as in Figure 1. B, Results of statistical group analysis of the PRIP for category-selective regions FFA and PPA and control regions hIT and EVC. The PRIP was averaged across subjects, their preferred category. These effects are allowing for different particular image pairs to be inverted in each subject. Since inverted pairs are defined based on the notion of not confined to category-selective recategory preference, the analysis was based on nonface ace pairs for FFA and nonplace lace pairs for PPA. hIT and EVC do not gions: hIT and EVC show graded withinhave a strong category preference and were tested for both types of pairs, serving as a control for category-selective regions. We category activation profiles as well, used a two-sided label-randomization test to determine whether the PRIP differed significantly from 0.5; the level we expect under especially for places. the null hypothesis that the apparently inverted pairs actually have equal activation. A PRIP significantly 0.5 indicates that most The presence of within-category actiinverted pairs replicate. A PRIP significantly 0.5 indicates that most inverted pairs revert to category-preferential order. Results vation differences naturally leads us to ask show that most inverted pairs revert to category-preferential order for FFA and PPA for most ROI sizes. The p values were corrected how these differences can be explained. for multiple comparisons as described in Figure 1. Black boxes highlight the ROI sizes used in Figures 1 (FFA and PPA) and 2 (hIT and Previous studies have suggested that huEVC). man faces might activate FFA more strongly than animal faces (Kanwisher et within-category ranking (Fig. 5), which we estimated by rank al., 1999). This raises the possibility that graded within-category correlating within-category activation profiles across sessions profiles reflect the existence of subcategories that elicit different (Fig. 5A). If the ranking for a category of images (e.g., faces) was levels of activation. For faces, we investigated this possibility by replicable across sessions, this would indicate that some of these performing a one-sided t test on the within-face activation estiimages consistently activated the region more strongly than othmates averaged across subjects and sessions, comparing activaers. Group results are shown in Figure 5B. tion to human versus animal faces in each ROI. This analysis Left and right FFA showed replicable ranking for faces, espeshowed that left FFA at the smallest two ROI sizes was indeed cially at smaller ROI sizes (Fig. 5B, top). This indicates that some activated more strongly by human than animal faces (t(22) 3.6, p 0.01 for 10 voxels; t(22) 2.8, p 0.05 for 23 voxels; p values faces consi.
