4.7 Article

Separate face and body selectivity on the fusiform gyrus

Journal

JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE
Volume 25, Issue 47, Pages 11055-11059

Publisher

SOC NEUROSCIENCE
DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2621-05.2005

Keywords

fMRI; FFA; faces; bodies; fusiform; object

Categories

Funding

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [P41 RR014075, P41RR14075] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NEI NIH HHS [EY13455, R01 EY013455, EY016231, R21 EY016231] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Recent reports of a high response to bodies in the fusiform face area ( FFA) challenge the idea that the FFA is exclusively selective for face stimuli. We examined this claim by conducting a functional magnetic resonance imaging experiment at both standard ( 3.125 x 3.125 x 4.0mm) and high resolution ( 1.4 x 1.4 x 2.0 mm). In both experiments, regions of interest ( ROIs) were defined using data from blocked localizer runs. Within each ROI, we measured the mean peak response to a variety of stimulus types in independent data from a subsequent event-related experiment. Our localizer scans identified a fusiform body area ( FBA), a body-selective region reported recently by Peelen and Downing ( 2005) that is anatomically distinct from the extrastriate body area. The FBA overlapped with and was adjacent to the FFA in all but two participants. Selectivity of the FFA to faces and FBA to bodies was stronger for the high-resolution scans, as expected from the reduction in partial volume effects. When new ROIs were constructed for the high-resolution experiment by omitting the voxels showing overlapping selectivity for both bodies and faces in the localizer scans, the resulting FFA*ROI showed no response above control objects for body stimuli, and the FBA*ROI showed no response above control objects for face stimuli. These results demonstrate strong selectivities in distinct but adjacent regions in the fusiform gyrus for only faces in one region ( the FFA*) and only bodies in the other ( the FBA*).

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available