4.8 Article

Triple Dissociation of Faces, Bodies, and Objects in Extrastriate Cortex

期刊

CURRENT BIOLOGY
卷 19, 期 4, 页码 319-324

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2009.01.007

关键词

-

资金

  1. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BB/F022875/1]
  2. Medical Research Council [G0700929]
  3. BBSRC [BB/F022875/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  4. MRC [G0700929] Funding Source: UKRI
  5. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BB/F022875/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  6. Medical Research Council [G0700929] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Neuroscientists have long debated whether focal brain regions perform specific cognitive functions [1-5], and the issue remains central to a current debate about visual object recognition. The distributed view of cortical function suggests that object discrimination depends on dispersed but functionally overlapping representations spread across visual cortex [6-8]. The modular view claims different categories of objects are discriminated in functionally segregated and specialized cortical areas [9-11]. To test these competing theories, we delivered transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) over three adjacent functionally localized areas in extrastriate cortex. In three experiments, participants performed discrimination tasks involving faces, bodies, and objects while TMS was delivered over the right occipital face area (rOFA) [12], the right extrastriate body area (rEBA) [13], or the right lateral occipital area (rLO) [14]. All three experiments showed a task selective dissociation with performance impaired only by stimulation at the site selective for that category: TMS over rOFA impaired discrimination of faces but not objects or bodies; TMS over rEBA impaired discrimination of bodies but not faces or objects; TMS over rLO impaired discrimination of objects but not faces or bodies. The results support a modular account in which category-selective areas contribute solely to discrimination of their preferred categories.

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

4.8
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