4.7 Article

The mid-fusiform sulcus: A landmark identifying both cytoarchitectonic and functional divisions of human ventral temporal cortex

期刊

NEUROIMAGE
卷 84, 期 -, 页码 453-465

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.08.068

关键词

Cytoarchitectonics; Fusiform gyrus; Mid-fusiform sulcus; Eccentricity bias; Fusiform face area

资金

  1. NSF [BC50920865]
  2. NIH [RO1 EY 02231801A1]
  3. Helmholtz Association within the Helmholtz Alliance on Systems Biology (Human Brain Model)
  4. DFG [IRTG 1328]
  5. NATIONAL EYE INSTITUTE [R01EY023915, R01EY022318] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Human ventral temporal cortex (VTC) plays a pivotal role in high-level vision. An under-studied macroanatomical feature of VTC is the mid-fusiform sulcus (MFS), a shallow longitudinal sulcus separating the lateral and medial fusiform gyrus (FG). Here, we quantified the morphological features of the MFS in 69 subjects (ages 7-40), and investigated its relationship to both cytoarchitectonic and functional divisions of VTC with four main findings. First, despite being a minor sulcus, we found that the MFS is a stable macroanatomical structure present in all 138 hemispheres with morphological characteristics developed by age 7. Second, the MFS is the locus of a lateral-medial cytoarchitectonic transition within the posterior FG serving as the boundary between cytoarchitectonic regions FG1 and FG2. Third, the MFS predicts a lateral-medial functional transition in eccentricity bias representations in children, adolescents, and adults. Fourth, the anterior tip of the MFS predicts the location of a face-selective region, mFus-faces/FFA-2. These findings are the first to illustrate that a macroanatomical landmark identifies both cytoarchitectonic and functional divisions of high-level sensory cortex in humans and have important implications for understanding functional and structural organization in the human brain. (C) 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据