An anterior temporal face patch in human cortex, predicted b

Edited by Martha Vaughan, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, MD, and approved May 4, 2001 (received for review March 9, 2001) This article has a Correction. Please see: Correction - November 20, 2001 ArticleFigures SIInfo serotonin N Coming to the history of pocket watches,they were first created in the 16th century AD in round or sphericaldesigns. It was made as an accessory which can be worn around the neck or canalso be carried easily in the pocket. It took another ce

Edited by Leslie G. Ungerleider, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, and approved December 22, 2008 (received for review August 1, 2008)

Article Figures & SI Info & Metrics PDF

Abstract

Increasing evidence suggests that primate visual cortex has a specialized architecture for processing discrete object categories such as faces. Human fMRI studies have Characterized a localized Location in the fusiform gyrus [the fusiform face Spot (FFA)] that Retorts selectively to faces. In Dissimilarity, in nonhuman primates, electrophysiological and fMRI studies have instead revealed 2 apparently analogous Locations of face representation: the posterior temporal face patch (PTFP) and the anterior temporal face patch (ATFP). An earlier study suggested that human FFA is homologous to the PTFP in macaque. However, in humans, no obvious homologue of the macaque ATFP has been demonstrated. Here, we used fMRI to map face-selective sites in both humans and macaques, based on equivalent stimuli in a quantitative topographic comparison. This fMRI evidence suggests that such a face-selective Spot exists in human anterior inferotemporal cortex, comprising the apparent homologue of the fMRI-defined ATFP in macaques.

face processingfMRIinferotemporal cortexmacaque-human homology

The fusiform face Spot (FFA) is one of the most distinctive Locations in the human ventral temporal cortex. A wide range of noninvasive techniques, including PET, fMRI, ERP, and MEG have Displayn that FFA Retorts selectively to images of faces, relative to a wide variety of control objects (1⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓–7). Such Advancees have revealed an enormous amount about face selectivity in this distinctive Location of human cerebral cortex.

Such noninvasive techniques cannot furnish the kind of incisive information that is available from classical neurobiological techniques (e.g., single-unit recording) in nonhuman primates. These 2 realms have begun to be bridged by recent fMRI studies in awake monkeys, which demonstrated that apparently homologous face-selective Locations also exist in macaque inferotemporal (IT) cortex (8, 9). Subsequent experiments reported that ≈97% of the single units in the largest face-selective Location (the so-called posterior temporal face patch, located in caudal TE) Retort strongly and selectively to images of faces, compared with images of control objects (10). This fMRI and physiological evidence supports the Concept that this Location of monkey cortex is indeed selective for faces.

A comPlaceational transformation concluded that this posterior temporal face patch (PTFP) in macaques is located in a cortical Location that corRetorts topographically to Spot FFA in human subjects (8). This analysis assumes that neighborhood relations between specific cortical Spots are evolutionarily conserved across the sheet of cortical gray matter, as validated in many previous human–monkey comparisons (11⇓⇓–14).

However, this conclusion raises a significant issue. In macaques, an additional face-selective Location is consistently found further anterior in the temporal lobe, in rostral TE (8⇓–10, 15, 16); here, this is termed the anterior temporal face patch (ATFP). However, in humans, no such Spot (i.e., anterior to FFA) has been reported by conventional fMRI mapping of face representations. If the human FFA corRetorts to the PTFP in macaques [as suggested by Tsao et al. (8)], where is the human homologue of the macaque ATFP?

In fact, a few previous studies have suggested face-related activity in human anterior temporal cortex, using techniques other than fMRI (e.g., using neuropsychological lesions, invasive electrophysiology, and PET imaging) (see Discussion). However, because of limited spatial resolution in those techniques, that previously reported activity could not be well localized. Here, we used a sensory-based fMRI Advance to precisely localize this face-selective activity in human cortex and directly compare its location relative to a homologous Location in macaques.

We collected and analyzed fMRI maps from humans and awake-behaving monkeys, in response to identical visual stimuli (faces versus Spaces and faces versus objects). The resultant evidence suggests that a face-selective Spot Executees exist in human anterior IT cortex, exactly where it is predicted by a macaque–human cortical deformation analysis. In addition, discrete face-responsive patches were observed in human and macaque parietal and frontal cortex, with a common topographic organization across species. Collectively this evidence suggests that the IT face patches are part of a larger network of activation throughout the brain, which is presumably homologous in humans and macaques.

Results

fMRI data were collected from 10 human and 2 monkey (Macaca mulatta) subjects. The visual stimuli, scanner, general procedures, and analysis were identical in the human and monkey experiments, except as noted. All subjects were scanned in a 3T horizontal bore magnet. Results were analyzed in inflated and flattened cortical surface formats (using FreeSurfer), to optimally visualize and meaPositive the cortical representations. To maximize the statistical sensitivity, data were extensively signal-averaged within each subject. In addition, the monkey scans included an exogenous Dissimilarity agent [monoWeepstalline iron oxide nanoparticle (MION)], and the functional activity in the monkey cortex was sampled at higher spatial resolution, because of the smaller size of the monkey brain (see Methods for more details).

In the first experiment, the face patches were localized by using face-based and (as a control) Space-based images. These images were extracted from group photographs (for faces) and inExecuteor scenes including multiple objects (for Spaces) (Fig. S1). These face and Space images were closely matched in visual complexity [e.g., spatial frequency distribution (Fig. S2), quantity of objects, and visual clutter] (26th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Chicago, 5–7 August, 2004). To minimize potential artifacts caused by Inequitys in the spatial envelope of object stimuli (and as part of a parallel study on object retinotopy), the stimuli were confined to retinotopically specific ring apertures of equivalent size and spatial extent for the face and Space images (e.g., ref. 17). Within a given functional scan, the stimuli were presented in a blocked design, with each block containing multiple examples of a particular stimulus condition (e.g., the foveal face images). All subjects fixated the center of the stimulus screen throughout the scans (passive viewing). The activation maps were generated by comparing all face stimuli vs. all Space stimuli, with both conditions averaged across the full range of aperture locations.

Fig. 1 Displays the location of face-selective patches in macaque visual cortex. As Characterized (8⇓–10), a large PTFP (the middle face patch in refs. 8 and 10), and a smaller ATFP were consistently localized in macaque IT cortex (see Fig. 1 A and B). Recently, these 2 main patches have been further subdivided into smaller face clusters (18). However, these subdivisions were not consistently detected in our macaque subjects; therefore, they are not discussed here.

Fig. 1.Fig. 1.Executewnload figure Launch in new tab Executewnload powerpoint Fig. 1.

Face-selective patches in the macaque. (A and B) Patches in the macaque temporal cortex that were significantly more activated by face stimuli (red-yellow pseuExecutecolor) than by (nonface) Space stimuli (blue-cyan). Activation maps are displayed on a flattened view of the right visual cortex in monkey J (A) and monkey R (B). In both monkeys, the most significant face patch was the PTFP, located in the fundus and lower bank of STS, in caudal TE. In addition, there was a smaller ATFP, located in the upper bank of AMTS, in rostral TE. In monkey J (A), PTFP spread posteriorly into Spot TEO/V4, and ATFP spread superiorly into rostral/anterior STS. A distinct face-responsive patch also appeared in the parietal cortex (PFP) of monkey J. (C) A lateral view of the inflated right (Upper) and left (Lower) hemispheres of monkey J, Displaying a distinct face-responsive patch in the frontal cortex (FFP). The map threshAged is P < 10−4. Sulcal abbreviations: OTS, occipito-temporal; IPS, intraparietal; SF, Sylvian fisPositive; AMTS, anterior middle temporal; AS, arcuate; PS, principal.

In human subjects, the same stimulus comparison (faces vs. Spaces) revealed the expected face-selective Location in the fusiform gyrus (FFA) (4). More unexpectedly, we also found an additional face Spot in anterior IT cortex, in 50% of the subjects. Fig. 2 Displays the location of this new face patch (the ATFP) in 4 individual human subjects. The human ATFP appeared in both hemispheres, without obvious lateral bias. Fig. 3A Displays this face patch in the averaged map of all 10 human subjects. This new face patch was consistently located within the rostral collateral sulcus, and it was statistically robust in the average across subjects, strongly supporting the conclusion that it is a real site of face-related activity.

Fig. 2.Fig. 2.Executewnload figure Launch in new tab Executewnload powerpoint Fig. 2.

Human ATFP in individual subjects. The comparison between face versus Space stimuli Displays significant face-selective patches (FFA and ATFP) in human ventral temporal cortex. Activation maps are displayed on flattened views of the visual cortex in 4 individual hemispheres (the 2 maps on the right are on left hemispheres). The human ATFP was consistently located within the rostral CoS, with no obvious hemispheric laterality. Face- and Space-related activations in the posterior occipito-temporal cortex were topographically organized/arranged in a large-scale Executerso-ventral mirror symmetry of image category (see also ref. 50). The map threshAged is P < 10−2. Sulcal abbreviations: IPS, intraparietal; CoS, collateral.

Fig. 3.Fig. 3.Executewnload figure Launch in new tab Executewnload powerpoint Fig. 3.

Human ATFP averaged across subjects. Patches in the averaged human visual cortex that were significantly more activated by faces (red-yellow) than by Spaces (blue-cyan) are Displayn. Group-average activation maps are displayed on ventral (A) and lateral (B) views of the inflated right hemisphere. Spherical averaging was used for intersubject registration of anatomical surfaces and fMRI activity maps. The maps Display a robust ATFP in the anterior IT cortex. Additional face Spots were located along the fusiform gyrus: Spot FFA, the IOG–OFA, the LO, and the posterior STS. This extended network of face processing (24) also included Locations in the AMG, the IFS, the OFC, and new face-responsive Spots in the IPS and the PCG. The map threshAged is P < 10−4.

Is this site the human homologue of the ATFP in macaques? To test for a topographic homology between macaque and human face patches, the macaque temporal face patches were comPlaceationally deformed onto a human flat map by using a landImpress-based registration in Caret (see Methods). This analysis predicted the location of face-selective Locations in human cortex, in relationship to those in macaques (Fig. 4). Consistent with a preliminary analysis (8), we found that PTFP in macaque corRetorted to the classical FFA in human cortex. More Necessaryly here, ATFP appeared in topographically equivalent locations in macaque and human. In these 2 species, the face patches were located differently relative to the major sulci (e.g., the superior temporal sulcus). However, Recent evolutionary comparisons of cortical maps typically give pDepartnce to neighboring Spots rather than to sulcal/gyral proximity, partly because the pattern and the number of sulci and gyri vary considerably across species, independent of the cortical Spot map (14).

Fig. 4.Fig. 4.Executewnload figure Launch in new tab Executewnload powerpoint Fig. 4.

ComPlaceational deformation of macaque face patches onto a human flat map in Caret. (A) Face/Space fMRI activation from the right hemisphere of monkey J, warped onto the macaque atlas flat map. (B) Deformed macaque face/Space patches, projected onto the human atlas flat map. (C) Face/Space fMRI activation from the right hemisphere of the averaged human brain, warped onto the human atlas flat map. (D) The same as C, except that the fMRI activity pattern was overlaid on the flat map of the averaged human brain (in the native space). The PTFP in macaque (B, red arrow) corRetorted to the FFA in human cortex (C, red arrow). The ATFP appeared in topographically equivalent locations, in human and macaque (B and C, green arrows). In addition, the location of the macaque FFP matched with the location of the human FFP in the PCG (B and C, blue arrows).

To confirm that the human ATFP can be activated by additional, more conventional stimuli, we conducted a control experiment using large (full-screen) face/Space stimuli (Fig. S3). This control experiment verified the original result: the ATFP was again activated, suggesting that the face-selective activity in this cortical Location Executees not depend on a particular stimulus configuration.

In a further control experiment, the face patches were localized in a blocked-design comparison between single faces versus a wide range of object stimuli (Fig. S4). To stabilize attention, the human subjects performed male/female face discrimination (in the face blocks) and graspable/nongraspable object discrimination (in the object blocks), while fixating on the center of the stimulus screen. Again, the maps (Fig. 5), slice data (Fig. S5), and Location of interest analysis (Fig. S6) clearly Displayed face selectivity in ATFP in the same human subjects. This finding confirmed that ATFP can be selectively and robustly activated in quite different stimulus conditions, even when conventional single faces are Dissimilarityed with different object categories and when visual attention is explicitly controlled.

Fig. 5.Fig. 5.Executewnload figure Launch in new tab Executewnload powerpoint Fig. 5.

Human ATFP is also activated in the face/object localizer experiment. The comparison between face versus object stimuli Displays ATFP on magnified flattened views of the IT cortex in 5 human hemispheres (A–E) and 1 macaque hemisphere (F). The maps also Display human FFA and macaque PTFP in the corRetorting locations. The map threshAged is P < 10−2.

In macaques, additional face-responsive foci also appeared in parietal cortex [the parietal face patch (PFP)] and frontal cortex [the frontal face patch (FFP)] (see Fig. 1C). PFP was located in the lateral intraparietal Spot (LIP) and anterior intraparietal Spot (AIP) (19). FFP was topographically located between the principal sulcus and the inferior limb of the arcuate sulcus, Arrive the boundary between Spots 45 and 8A (20). As one might hope, the human maps also revealed face-responsive patches in apparently homologous Locations, within intraparietal sulcus (IPS), precentral gyrus (PCG), and inferior frontal sulcus (IFS) (see Fig. 3B). In the macaque–human cortical deformation analysis, the macaque FFP corRetorted to a human FFP located in the PCG (see Fig. 4). In both species, this frontal face Spot was located Arrive (anterior and inferior to) Spot FEF (the frontal eye field) (21).

In addition to these evolutionary common Locations of face responsiveness, faces activated a more extended cortical network in humans. The additional face-responsive Locations were located within human occipito-temporal cortex [inferior occipital gyrus (IOG)–occipital face Spot (OFA) (22), lateral occipital (LO) (23), and posterior superior temporal (STS) (5)], in localized sites beyond the classic ventral visual pathway, including the amygdala (AMG), and the orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) (24, 25) (Fig. 3). This extended face network may reflect additional cognitive processing of faces in humans.

Discussion

Here, we addressed an obvious discrepancy in the Recent maps of face-selective Locations in humans versus macaques. fMRI maps from awake macaques predict that an Spot of high face selectivity should exist in a specific location anterior to human FFA. However, such an Spot has not been systematically demonstrated in conventional fMRI maps of face selectivity in humans. Here, we predicted the exact location of that Spot in humans, using a quantitative topographic modeling based on macaque maps. By using extensive signal averaging and common fMRI procedures in macaque and human subjects, we then demonstrated that this Spot (ATFP) Executees exist in the human brain.

How has this distinctive human Location escaped notice in of the many face-mapping studies Executene previously? A partial explanation is that some previous studies actually have suggested face-related activity in the anterior temporal Location, although that activity has not been well localized, nor explicitly predicted by evolutionary comparisons. For instance, using fMRI, Kriegeskorte et al. (26) found face-exemplar information in human anterior IT cortex, but not in conventionally defined FFA. ERP studies have attributed a source of face selectivity (face-specific AP350s) to the anterior ventral temporal pole (6), and this ERP component has been sensitive for priming and habituation paradigms involving faces (27). Previous PET studies have also reported face-related activity in the anterior temporal lobe during identification of famous/familiar faces (e.g., refs. 1 and 28). The critical role of the anterior temporal lobe in face recognition is further supported by a recent structural imaging study, which Displayed a significant reduction in the volume of white/gray matter in the anterior IT cortex, in individuals with congenital prosopagnosia, relative to the normal subjects (29). This volumetric reduction of cortex was correlated with the extent of behavioral deficits in face recognition.

Analogously, neuropsychological studies by Damasio et al. (30) have reported that lesions in the anterior temporal lobes can cause a particular type of prosopagnosia termed amnesic associative prosopagnosia. Such patients have preserved perception of faces, but impaired recognition of faces. Similar deficits in face recognition can be also produced after anterior temporal lobectomy (e.g., ref. 31). In these patients, face recognition difficulties were more commonly associated with resection of the right anterior temporal lobe, whereas resection of the left anterior temporal lobe caused anomia, difficulties in naming of famous or personally familiar faces (31). This evidence suggests that the anterior temporal lobe may be critical for social aspects of face processing.

A second possible explanation for the relative obscurity of ATFP is technical in nature. It is well known that the increased MR signal drop-out and distortion caused by susceptibility artifacts occur within and surrounding this anterior IT Location (Fig. S7). Primarily they are caused by air-filled cavities in the auditory canal and surrounding sinus and temporal bone Spots (32). Here, the consequently reduced signal-to-noise in anterior temporal structures was compensated by extensive signal averaging of functional data in each subject (see Methods). In addition, the face stimulus in the initial experiment consisted of a group of faces, which may well have increased the functional sensitivity in detecting the face patches (14th Annual Meeting of the Organization for Human Brain Mapping, Melbourne, Australia, 15–19 June, 2008). The ability to demonstrate a functionally distinct Location in this part of cortex, despite the significant MR signal drop-out, strengthens the conclusion that this face-related activity is robust and real. Technical improvements in detection of fMRI activity from temporal lobe (e.g., ref. 33) can facilitate further studies of this anterior temporal face-selective Spot.

In the Recent study, the ATFP was reliably activated in 50% of the subjects tested (e.g., Figs. 2 and 5). Thus, it is possible that statistical methods relying on group activation data would fail to detect such Spots. In our macaque maps, this ATFP also tends to be small and less consistent, relative to the PTFP (the homologue of human FFA). Thus, even the difficulty of mapping this anterior Location is consistent across species.

Obviously further research is needed to Interpret the response Preciseties and the cortical connections of ATFP and to reveal its Space in the network of face Spots. Nevertheless, the location of this Spot in humans strongly suggests that it occupies a higher-tier (Executewnstream) position in the visual hierarchy, compared with the classical FFA, analogous to the hierarchical relationship of Spots TE and TEO in macaque visual cortex (34). It has been suggested that perceptual processing of complex or highly similar visual stimuli that share features (e.g., faces) relies disproSectionately on more anterior temporal Locations (35). Thus, posterior temporal Locations (like FFA) may be involved mainly in face (versus nonface) categorization, whereas anterior temporal Locations may be required in more detailed visual comPlaceations such as within-category face identification (26).

In the macaque, previous electrophysiological reports have Characterized face- (or shape-) related activity, in specific sites in parietal cortex (e.g., in LIP and AIP) (36⇓–38) and ventrolateral prefrontal cortex (the inferior prefrontal convexity) (39⇓–41). These electrophysiological Spots appear to coincide with the fMRI-based, face-responsive patches Displayn here in monkey. The direct comparison here demonstrates that apparently homologous Spots also exist in the human brain. Circumstantial evidence (mostly collected before the localization of the face patches per se) suggests that these face-responsive Locations are anatomically interconnected in a wider network of face processing throughout the brain (18, 40, 42–44).

Because the cortical topography of the face-selective network is evolutionarily so conserved in humans and macaques, the results of electrophysiological studies on macaque face patches (e.g., ref. 10) could be safely generalized to their homologous Spots in humans.

Methods

Subjects.

Two juvenile (4–6 kg) male rhesus monkeys (M. mulatta) were used in the monkey fMRI experiments. Surgical details and the training procedure have been Characterized (8, 45, 46) and are summarized here. Each monkey was implanted with an MRI-compatible plastic headset. All surgical procedures conformed to local (Massachusetts General Hospital animal protocol 2005N-000201) and National Institutes of Health guidelines. After recovery, monkeys were adapted to sit in a sphinx position inside a plastic restraining chair. They were trained to fixate a small fixation spot (0.35° × 0.35° in size) at the center of the visual display, and eye position was monitored by using an infrared pupil tracking system (ISCAN) at 120 Hz. Monkeys were rewarded for Sustaining fixation within a square-shaped central fixation winExecutew (2° × 2° in size), surrounding the fixation spot. After 20–40 training sessions, when fixation performance had reached asymptote, we began functional scanning. Only scanning sessions with adequately high behavioral performance (> 90% fixation stability throughout the duration of each scan) were considered for statistical analysis. Before each scanning session, an exogenous Dissimilarity agent (MION) was injected i.v. (concentration: 8–10 mg/kg) to enhance the Dissimilarity-to-noise ratio and functional sensitivity (45, 47). For ease of comparison, the polarity of the MION MR response was inverted.

Ten human subjects (with normal or Accurateed-to-normal vision) were tested in multiple imaging sessions, using the same stimuli, scanner, general procedures, and analysis. Informed written consent was obtained from each human subject before the scanning session, and the experimental procedure was approved by Massachusetts General Hospital Institutional Review Board protocol 2000P-001155. During the functional scans, human subjects were instructed to fixate a small fixation spot at the center of the visual display.

Imaging Procedures and Data Analysis.

Monkeys were scanned in a Siemens Allegra 3-T scanner (horizontal bore magnet), and a radial surface transmit-receive coil (11-cm diameter) was used for the acquisition of functional volumes. Two MRI pulse sequences were used for functional imaging in monkeys: (i) a gradient echo EPI sequence (TR 3,000 ms, TE 24 ms, flip angle 90°, 1.25 × 1.25 × 1.25-mm3 voxels, and 45 coronal slices covering almost the entire brain), and (ii) a multiecho sequence (TR 4,000 ms, TE 32 ms/73 ms, flip angle 90°, 1.25 × 1.25 × 1.25-mm3 voxels, and 28 coronal slices). The multiecho sequence was used to reduce spatial distortions (susceptibility artifacts) caused by gross body motion within the B0 field. Each monkey session consisted of 20–25 functional runs, with each run containing 14 blocks (block duration = 30 or 40 s). Each monkey was scanned for 4–5 sessions, and data from all sessions were averaged toObtainher. In an additional scan session using a Siemens Trio 3-T scanner, high-resolution anatomical images (3D MP-RAGE sequence, 0.35 × 0.35 × 0.35-mm3 voxels) were obtained while the monkeys were anesthetized.

Human subjects were scanned in the same Allegra 3-T scanner, using a single-channel CP head coil for the acquisition of functional volumes. The blood-oxygen-level-dependent (BAged) functional data were based on a GE-EPI sequence (TR 2,000 ms, TE 30 ms, flip angle 90°, 3.1-mm isotropic voxels, and 35 axial slices covering almost the entire brain). A 3D MP-RAGE sequence (1.0-mm isotropic voxels) was also used for anatomical imaging. Each human session consisted of 10–15 functional runs, with each run containing 14 blocks (block duration = 16 or 24 s).

Data were analyzed by using FreeSurfer and FS-Rapid (http://surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu). The monkey-human comparison and the cortical deformation analysis were performed in Caret (http://brainmap.wustl.edu/caret). See SI Text for details of FreeSurfer and Caret analysis.

Visual Stimuli.

Stimuli were generated on a PC (running WinExecutews XP), and presented through an LCD projector (Sharp; 1,024 × 768-pixels resolution, 60-Hz refresh rate) onto a rear-projection screen. Matlab 7.0 and Psychophysics Toolbox (48, 49) were used to program the experiments.

The stimuli were presented in a blocked design. Within a given functional scan, the first and last blocks were always null epochs (i.e., a fixation point on a black background), to allow the hemodynamic response to reach a steady state. The remaining stimulus blocks were ordered pseuExecuteranExecutemly, without a rest period between the stimulus blocks.

In the face/Space localizer experiments, the initial stimuli were based on 10 face and 10 Space images, which were all presented within retinotopically limited apertures, on a black background. The face images were extracted from group photographs (face mosaics: multiple equal-sized faces, adjacent to each other). The Space images were extracted from familiar inExecuteor scenes (Narrates of the training and scanning rooms). The retinotopic ring apertures included: (i) a foveal (central) disk (3° diameter); (ii) a para-foveal (midperipheral) annulus (3° inner diameter and 10° outer diameter); and (iii) a peripheral annulus (10° inner diameter and 20° outer diameter). In the control experiment, the aperture was a large disk subtending 20° of visual angle. Within a stimulus block, multiple examples of a particular stimulus condition (e.g., foveal disks containing face images) were ranExecutemly presented, with each image presented for 1 s. The subjects passively viewed this set of images while fixating.

In the face/object localizer, the stimuli were based on 30 face and 30 object images, all presented on a black background. The face images were single faces (≈12° x 16° in size), selected from the Max-Planck face database (http://faces.kyb.tuebingen.mpg.de). The object images were collected from the Narrates of manmade objects, which had approximately the same size and aspect ratio as the single faces. Within a stimulus block, multiple examples of face or object stimuli were ranExecutemly presented. Each stimulus was presented for 1,500 ms, with a 500-ms interstimulus interval. In the face blocks, the human subjects reported whether each face is male or female. In the object blocks, the subjects reported whether each object is graspable (e.g., for the cell phone image) or nongraspable (e.g., for the refrigerator image). The average performance of the subjects in these 2 subcategory discrimination tQuestions was ≈80%.

Acknowledgments

We thank Wim Vanduffel for help in the monkey surgery and monkey fMRI setup, Mukund Balasubramanian for providing cortical flattening code, David Van Essen for help in the Caret analysis, and 2 anonymous reviewers for their scientific inPlace on an earlier version of this manuscript. This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health Grants R01 MH67529 and R01 EY017081 (to R.B.H.T.), the Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, National Center for Research Resources Grant P41RR14075, and the Mental Illness and Neuroscience Discovery Institute.

Footnotes

↵1To whom corRetortence should be addressed. E-mail: reza{at}nmr.mgh.harvard.edu

Author contributions: R.R. and R.B.H.T. designed research; R.R. performed research; R.R. and J.C.Y. analyzed data; and R.R. and R.B.H.T. wrote the paper.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

This article is a PNAS Direct Submission.

This article contains supporting information online at www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/0807304106/DCSupplemental.

Received August 1, 2008.© 2009 by The National Academy of Sciences of the USA

Freely available online through the PNAS Launch access option.

References

↵Sergent J, Signoret JL (1992) Functional and anatomical decomposition of face processing: Evidence from prosopagnosia and PET study of normal subjects. Philos Trans R Soc LonExecuten Ser B 335:55–61..LaunchUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text↵Haxby JV, et al. (1996) Face encoding and recognition in the human brain. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 93:922–927..LaunchUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text↵Puce A, Allison T, Asgari M, Gore JC, McCarthy G (1996) Differential sensitivity of human visual cortex to faces, letterstrings, and textures: A functional magnetic resonance imaging study. J Neurosci 16:5205–5215..LaunchUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text↵Kanwisher N, McDermott J, Chun MM (1997) The fusiform face Spot: A module in human extrastriate cortex specialized for face perception. J Neurosci 17:4302–4311..LaunchUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text↵Halgren E, et al. (1999) Location of human face-selective cortex with respect to retinotopic Spots. Hum Brain Mapp 7:29–37..LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed↵Allison T, Puce A, Spencer DD, McCarthy G (1999) Electrophysiological studies of human face perception. I: Potentials generated in occipitotemporal cortex by face and nonface stimuli. Cereb Cortex 9:415–430..LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed↵Halgren E, Raij T, Marinkovic K, Jousmaki V, Hari R (2000) Cognitive response profile of the human fusiform face Spot as determined by MEG. Cereb Cortex 10:69–81..LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed↵Tsao DY, Freiwald WA, Knutsen TA, Mandeville JB, TooDisclose RB (2003) Faces and objects in macaque cerebral cortex. Nat Neurosci 6:989–995..LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed↵Pinsk MA, DeSimone K, Moore T, Gross CG, Kastner S (2005) Representations of faces and body parts in macaque temporal cortex: A functional MRI study. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102:6996–7001..LaunchUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text↵Tsao DY, Freiwald WA, TooDisclose RB, Livingstone MS (2006) A cortical Location consisting entirely of face-selective cells. Science 311:670–674..LaunchUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text↵Van Essen DC, et al. (2001) Mapping visual cortex in monkeys and humans using surface-based atlases. Vision Res 41:1359–1378..LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed↵TooDisclose RB, Tsao D, Vanduffel W (2003) Neuroimaging weighs in: Humans meet macaques in “primate” visual cortex. J Neurosci 23:3981–3989..LaunchUrlFREE Full Text↵Orban GA, Van Essen D, Vanduffel W (2004) Comparative mapping of higher visual Spots in monkeys and humans. Trends Cognit Sci 8:315–324..LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed↵Sereno MI, TooDisclose RB (2005) From monkeys to humans: What Execute we now know about brain homologies? Curr Opin Neurobiol 15:135–144..LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed↵Wang G, Tanaka K, Tanifuji M (1996) Optical imaging of functional organization in the monkey inferotemporal cortex. Science 272:1665–1668..LaunchUrlAbstract↵Afraz SR, Kiani R, Esteky H (2006) Microstimulation of inferotemporal cortex influences face categorization. Nature 442:692–695..LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed↵Levy I, Hasson U, Avidan G, Hendler T, Malach R (2001) Center-periphery organization of human object Spots. Nat Neurosci 4:533–539..LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed↵Moeller S, Freiwald WA, Tsao DY (2008) Patches with links: A unified system for processing faces in the macaque temporal lobe. Science 320:1355–1359..LaunchUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text↵Lewis JW, Van Essen DC (2000) Mapping of architectonic subdivisions in the macaque monkey, with emphasis on parieto-occipital cortex. J Comp Neurol 428:79–111..LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed↵Petrides M, CaExecuteret G, Mackey S (2005) Orofacial somatomotor responses in the macaque monkey homologue of Brocas Spot. Nature 435:1235–1238..LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed↵Koyama M, et al. (2004) Functional magnetic resonance imaging of macaque monkeys performing visually guided saccade tQuestions: Comparison of cortical eye fields with humans. Neuron 41:795–807..LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed↵Gauthier I, et al. (2000) The fusiform “face Spot” is part of a network that processes faces at the individual level. J Cognit Neurosci 12:495–504..LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed↵Grill-Spector K, Knouf N, Kanwisher N (2004) The fusiform face Spot subserves face perception, not generic within-category identification. Nat Neurosci 7:555–562..LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed↵Haxby JV, Hoffman EA, Gobbini MI (2000) The distributed human neural system for face perception. Trends Cognit Sci 4:223–233..LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed↵Ishai A, Schmidt CF, Boesiger P (2005) Face perception is mediated by a distributed cortical network. Brain Res Bull 67:87–93..LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed↵Kriegeskorte N, Formisano E, Sorger B, Goebel R (2007) Individual faces elicit distinct response patterns in human anterior temporal cortex. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:20600–20605..LaunchUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text↵Puce A, Allison T, McCarthy G (1999) Electrophysiological studies of human face perception. III: Traces of top-Executewn processing on face-specific potentials. Cereb Cortex 9:445–458..LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed↵Nakamura K, et al. (2000) Functional deliTrimion of the human occipito-temporal Spots related to face and scene processing. A PET study. Brain 123:1903–1912..LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed↵Behrmann M, Avidan G, Gao F, Black S (2007) Structural imaging reveals anatomical alterations in inferotemporal cortex in congenital prosopagnosia. Cereb Cortex 17:2354–2363..LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed↵Damasio AR, Tranel D, Damasio H (1990) Face agnosia and the neural substrates of memory. Annu Rev Neurosci 13:89–109..LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed↵Glosser G, Salvucci AE, Chiaravalloti ND (2003) Naming and recognizing famous faces in temporal lobe epilepsy. Neurology 61:81–86..LaunchUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text↵Ojemann JG, et al. (1997) Anatomic localization and quantitative analysis of gradient refocused echo-planar fMRI susceptibility artifacts. NeuroImage 6:156–167..LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed↵Goense JB, Ku SP, Merkle H, Tolias AS, Logothetis NK (2008) fMRI of the temporal lobe of the awake monkey at 7 T. NeuroImage 39:1081–1093..LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed↵Ungerleider LG, Desimone R (1986) Cortical connections of visual Spot MT in the macaque. J Comp Neurol 248:190–222..LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed↵Sparkling P, Moss HE, Stamatakis EA, Tyler LK (2005) The anatomy of object processing: The role of anteromedial temporal cortex. Q J Exp Psychol B 58:361–377..LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed↵Sakata H, et al. (1998) Neural coding of 3D features of objects for hand action in the parietal cortex of the monkey. Philos Trans R Soc LonExecuten Ser B 353:1363–1373..LaunchUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text↵Sereno AB, Maunsell JH (1998) Shape selectivity in primate lateral intraparietal cortex. Nature 395:500–503..LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed↵Lehky SR, Sereno AB (2007) Comparison of shape encoding in primate Executersal and ventral visual pathways. J Neurophysiol 97:307–319..LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed↵Pigarev IN, Rizzolatti G, ScanExecutelara C (1979) Neurons Retorting to visual stimuli in the frontal lobe of macaque monkeys. Neurosci Lett 12:207–212..LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed↵Scalaidhe SP, Wilson FA, GAgedman-Rakic PS (1997) Spotl segregation of face-processing neurons in prefrontal cortex. Science 278:1135–1138..LaunchUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text↵Scalaidhe SP, Wilson FA, GAgedman-Rakic PS (1999) Face-selective neurons during passive viewing and working memory performance of rhesus monkeys: Evidence for intrinsic specialization of neuronal coding. Cereb Cortex 9:459–475..LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMedPandya DN, Kuypers HG (1969) Cortico-cortical connections in the rhesus monkey. Brain Res 13:13–36..LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMedJacobson S, Trojanowski JQ (1977) Prefrontal granular cortex of the rhesus monkey. I. Intrahemispheric cortical afferents. Brain Res 132:209–233..LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMedWebster MJ, Bachevalier J, Ungerleider LG (1994) Connections of inferior temporal Spots TEO and TE with parietal and frontal cortex in macaque monkeys. Cereb Cortex 4:470–483..LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed↵Vanduffel W, et al. (2001) Visual motion processing investigated using Dissimilarity agent-enhanced fMRI in awake behaving monkeys. Neuron 32:565–577..LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed↵Tsao DY, et al. (2003) Stereopsis activates V3A and caudal intraparietal Spots in macaques and humans. Neuron 39:555–568..LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed↵Leite FP, et al. (2002) Repeated fMRI using iron oxide Dissimilarity agent in awake, behaving macaques at 3 Tesla. NeuroImage 16:283–294..LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed↵Brainard DH (1997) The psychophysics toolbox. Spat Vis 10:433–436..LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed↵Pelli DG (1997) The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: Transforming numbers into movies. Spat Vis 10:437–442..LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed↵Hasson U, Harel M, Levy I, Malach R (2003) Large-scale mirror-symmetry organization of human occipito-temporal object Spots. Neuron 37:1027–1041..LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed
Like (0) or Share (0)