Truly inverted pairs in left FFA at the individual subject level.

Truly inverted pairs in left FFA at the individual subject level. We therefore subsequently performed the largest-gap inverted-pairs analysis on the subject-average activation profile again, but this time with optimal linear weighting of the activation estimates for the four subjects. Each single-image activation in each subject was given the weight 1/SE 2, where SE is the standard error of the estimate. This weighting yields the minimum-variance weighted average for the group. For PPA and right FFA, no inversions were detected consistent with the analysis shown in Figure 4 B, where activation profiles were averaged across subjects with equal weights. However, for left FFA (defined at 55 or 128 voxels), we found evidence for replicated inverted pairs. In sum, our findings are consistent with the idea that right FFA will prefer any face over any nonface (in terms of its regional-average activation), and that left Figure 2. Single-image activation of hIT and EVC does not show a strong category preference. As in Figure 1, images are ranked and right PPA will similarly prefer any by the activation they elicited in each ROI. Insets show order Serabelisib discrimination performance. Statistical tests as described in Figure 1. hIT and place over any nonplace. Only for left FFA EVC were defined bilaterally at 256 voxels each, based on visual responsiveness during an independent block-localizer experiment. was there some evidence for preference the two largest ROI sizes. The bottom panel of Table 1 shows inversions for particular images. near-perfect discrimination of places from nonplaces based on Control regions hIT and EVC do not have a strong category single-image activation of both left and right PPA at all ROI preference. However, for completeness, we performed the sizes. Discrimination performance of right PPA was not influsame analyses for these regions and found that their PRIP enced by ROI size; performance of left PPA was a bit lower for values were not Linaprazan supplement significantly different from chance (Fig. 3B). the two smallest ROI sizes. It should be noted that hIT showed Our more sensitive largest-gap inverted-pairs test showed evabove-chance performance for discriminating faces from nonidence for a small number of replicated inverted pairs in both faces at small ROI sizes (0.71 AUC 0.72, p 0.01), which hIT and EVC at all (EVC) or most (hIT) ROI sizes (Fig. 4 B; can be attributed to the inclusion of some weakly facesmallest two ROI sizes and hIT not shown). The evidence for selective voxels in a subset of the subjects. Furthermore, the face onface inversions remained present in the subjectabove-chance performance of EVC for discriminating places unique group analysis, but the evidence for place onplace from nonplaces reported in Figure 1, where EVC was defined inversions largely disappeared (it only remained present in at 256 voxels, was only marginally significant for the other EVC at 46 voxels). Overall, these results are consistent with four ROI sizes (0.71 AUC 0.73, p 0.10). With respect to our expectation that particular images drive these regions to preference inversions, Figure 3B indicates that right FFA and slightly different degrees, but the preferences do not conform PPA showed PRIP effects for their preferred category at almost to the category definitions. all ROI sizes. Left FFA and PPA showed PRIP effects at most ROI sizes, with stronger effects at smaller ROI sizes for FFA Category discriminability and preference inversions across and larger ROI s.Truly inverted pairs in left FFA at the individual subject level. We therefore subsequently performed the largest-gap inverted-pairs analysis on the subject-average activation profile again, but this time with optimal linear weighting of the activation estimates for the four subjects. Each single-image activation in each subject was given the weight 1/SE 2, where SE is the standard error of the estimate. This weighting yields the minimum-variance weighted average for the group. For PPA and right FFA, no inversions were detected consistent with the analysis shown in Figure 4 B, where activation profiles were averaged across subjects with equal weights. However, for left FFA (defined at 55 or 128 voxels), we found evidence for replicated inverted pairs. In sum, our findings are consistent with the idea that right FFA will prefer any face over any nonface (in terms of its regional-average activation), and that left Figure 2. Single-image activation of hIT and EVC does not show a strong category preference. As in Figure 1, images are ranked and right PPA will similarly prefer any by the activation they elicited in each ROI. Insets show discrimination performance. Statistical tests as described in Figure 1. hIT and place over any nonplace. Only for left FFA EVC were defined bilaterally at 256 voxels each, based on visual responsiveness during an independent block-localizer experiment. was there some evidence for preference the two largest ROI sizes. The bottom panel of Table 1 shows inversions for particular images. near-perfect discrimination of places from nonplaces based on Control regions hIT and EVC do not have a strong category single-image activation of both left and right PPA at all ROI preference. However, for completeness, we performed the sizes. Discrimination performance of right PPA was not influsame analyses for these regions and found that their PRIP enced by ROI size; performance of left PPA was a bit lower for values were not significantly different from chance (Fig. 3B). the two smallest ROI sizes. It should be noted that hIT showed Our more sensitive largest-gap inverted-pairs test showed evabove-chance performance for discriminating faces from nonidence for a small number of replicated inverted pairs in both faces at small ROI sizes (0.71 AUC 0.72, p 0.01), which hIT and EVC at all (EVC) or most (hIT) ROI sizes (Fig. 4 B; can be attributed to the inclusion of some weakly facesmallest two ROI sizes and hIT not shown). The evidence for selective voxels in a subset of the subjects. Furthermore, the face onface inversions remained present in the subjectabove-chance performance of EVC for discriminating places unique group analysis, but the evidence for place onplace from nonplaces reported in Figure 1, where EVC was defined inversions largely disappeared (it only remained present in at 256 voxels, was only marginally significant for the other EVC at 46 voxels). Overall, these results are consistent with four ROI sizes (0.71 AUC 0.73, p 0.10). With respect to our expectation that particular images drive these regions to preference inversions, Figure 3B indicates that right FFA and slightly different degrees, but the preferences do not conform PPA showed PRIP effects for their preferred category at almost to the category definitions. all ROI sizes. Left FFA and PPA showed PRIP effects at most ROI sizes, with stronger effects at smaller ROI sizes for FFA Category discriminability and preference inversions across and larger ROI s.