Next. In other words, the evidence points in the direction of

Next. In other words, the evidence points in the direction of category-consistent ranking. The fact that most inverted pairs did not replicate does not eliminate the possibility that there is a small number of true inverted pairs. We therefore performed another analysis focused on the replicability of those inverted pairs that showed the Figure 1. Single-image activation of FFA and PPA discriminates preferred from nonpreferred images. The graphs show largest activation difference between the the 96 object images ranked by the activation they elicited in each ROI. Each bar represents activation to one of the 96 object two images (the “largest-gap inverted images in Mequitazine web percent signal change averaged across four subjects. Each image is placed exactly below the bar that reflects its pairs”). Assuming that noise equally afactivation, so that the images are ordered from left to right (i.e., only the x-coordinate is meaningful). The leftmost image fects all images, the largest-gap inverted activated the region most strongly, the rightmost image activated the region most weakly. The highest- and lowest- pairs are the most likely candidates for ranked images are enlarged to give a first impression of the region’s response preference. The bars are color-coded for true inversions. Our test of replicability of category to give an overall impression of category selectivity without having to inspect all single images. Insets show ROC largest-gap inverted pairs (Fig. 4; see Macurves and associated AUCs, indicating performance for discriminating faces from nonfaces (red) and places from nonplaces terials and Methods), performed on the (blue). We used a two-sided label-randomization test to determine whether discrimination performance was significantly different from chance (H0: AUC 0.5). Since we tested discrimination performance at five different ROI sizes for each subject-average activation profile, showed region, we corrected p values for multiple (five) comparisons using Bonferroni correction. Error bars indicate SE of the no evidence for replicated inverted pairs activation estimates, averaged across four subjects. FFA and PPA were each defined at 128 voxels in each hemisphere, in either FFA or PPA at any ROI size (Fig. based on an independent block-localizer experiment. Note that the smooth falloff is a necessary consequence of the rank 4 B; smallest two ROI sizes not shown). ordering of the activation profile. Therefore further analyses are required to test for preference inversions (Figs. 3, 4), purchase I-BRD9 Statistical inference was performed using gradedness (Figs. 5, 6), and a categorical step (Fig. 6). a Monte Carlo simulation of the null hypothesis of no true inverted pairs. We adnonfaces even if there are no places among the nonfaces. Disditionally performed a modified version of our largest-gap crimination performance of hIT was not significantly different inverted-pairs analysis, which is sensitive to subject-unique preffrom chance for either category. EVC showed above-chance pererence inversions. Results for this analysis did not differ from the formance for places (Fig. 2; AUC 0.74, p 0.05) but not for results shown in Figure 4 B, except that left FFA now showed faces. This suggests that place images differ to some extent from replicated inverted pairs at one of the five ROI sizes (23 voxels,8654 ?J. Neurosci., June 20, 2012 ?32(25):8649 ?Mur et al. ?Single-Image Activation of Category Regionsp 0.01). This suggests some evidence for the presence of.Next. In other words, the evidence points in the direction of category-consistent ranking. The fact that most inverted pairs did not replicate does not eliminate the possibility that there is a small number of true inverted pairs. We therefore performed another analysis focused on the replicability of those inverted pairs that showed the Figure 1. Single-image activation of FFA and PPA discriminates preferred from nonpreferred images. The graphs show largest activation difference between the the 96 object images ranked by the activation they elicited in each ROI. Each bar represents activation to one of the 96 object two images (the “largest-gap inverted images in percent signal change averaged across four subjects. Each image is placed exactly below the bar that reflects its pairs”). Assuming that noise equally afactivation, so that the images are ordered from left to right (i.e., only the x-coordinate is meaningful). The leftmost image fects all images, the largest-gap inverted activated the region most strongly, the rightmost image activated the region most weakly. The highest- and lowest- pairs are the most likely candidates for ranked images are enlarged to give a first impression of the region’s response preference. The bars are color-coded for true inversions. Our test of replicability of category to give an overall impression of category selectivity without having to inspect all single images. Insets show ROC largest-gap inverted pairs (Fig. 4; see Macurves and associated AUCs, indicating performance for discriminating faces from nonfaces (red) and places from nonplaces terials and Methods), performed on the (blue). We used a two-sided label-randomization test to determine whether discrimination performance was significantly different from chance (H0: AUC 0.5). Since we tested discrimination performance at five different ROI sizes for each subject-average activation profile, showed region, we corrected p values for multiple (five) comparisons using Bonferroni correction. Error bars indicate SE of the no evidence for replicated inverted pairs activation estimates, averaged across four subjects. FFA and PPA were each defined at 128 voxels in each hemisphere, in either FFA or PPA at any ROI size (Fig. based on an independent block-localizer experiment. Note that the smooth falloff is a necessary consequence of the rank 4 B; smallest two ROI sizes not shown). ordering of the activation profile. Therefore further analyses are required to test for preference inversions (Figs. 3, 4), Statistical inference was performed using gradedness (Figs. 5, 6), and a categorical step (Fig. 6). a Monte Carlo simulation of the null hypothesis of no true inverted pairs. We adnonfaces even if there are no places among the nonfaces. Disditionally performed a modified version of our largest-gap crimination performance of hIT was not significantly different inverted-pairs analysis, which is sensitive to subject-unique preffrom chance for either category. EVC showed above-chance pererence inversions. Results for this analysis did not differ from the formance for places (Fig. 2; AUC 0.74, p 0.05) but not for results shown in Figure 4 B, except that left FFA now showed faces. This suggests that place images differ to some extent from replicated inverted pairs at one of the five ROI sizes (23 voxels,8654 ?J. Neurosci., June 20, 2012 ?32(25):8649 ?Mur et al. ?Single-Image Activation of Category Regionsp 0.01). This suggests some evidence for the presence of.