MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1970801105 · doi:10.1167/7.9.627

Face-selective activation in the middle fusiform gyrus in a patient with acquired prosopagnosia: abnormal modulation for face identity

2010· article· en· W1970801105 on OpenAlexaff
Jennifer K. E. Steeves, Herbert C. Goltz, Laurence Dricot, Bettina Sorger, Judith Peters, A. David Milner, Melvyn A. Goodale, Bruno Rossion

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFace Recognition and Perception
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFusiform gyrusFusiform face areaPsychologyNeuroscienceAudiologyFace (sociological concept)Lateralization of brain functionCognitive psychologyFace perceptionFunctional magnetic resonance imagingPerceptionMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We recently reported bilateral face-preferential activation in the middle fusiform gyrus (mFG) and in the superior temporal sulcus (STS) of patient DF, who has severe acquired prosopagnosia and object agnosia but who is able to discriminate a face from an object (Steeves et al., 2006). Further, DF showed no face-preferential activation in the inferior occipital gyrus (IOG) in either hemisphere, which is near her lateral occipital lesions (LO). Identical face-preferential activation in the right mFG was also reported in the acquired prosopagnosic patient PS, who has lesions in the left mFG and right IOG (Rossion et al., 2003). However unlike neurologically-intact individuals, PS did not show release from adaptation to face identity in this area (Schiltz et al., 2006). Here, we tested DF for face identity-specific modulation using event-related fMR adaptation. In a passive design, DF viewed pairs of same and different faces and objects (1000 ms each, separated by 500 ms with 7500 ms ITI) and the task was to identify face-object trials. In an active 1-back matching design, DF viewed pairs of same and different faces. As before, DF showed face-preferential activation in both left and right mFG and STS. Contrary to healthy controls, in both designs the activation in these regions did not show the expected pattern of adaptation recovery with different face identities. Consistent with her behavioural performance, DF's cortical face networks do not appear to process face identity. Comparing patients PS and DF puts forth a solid case— they have different lesion patterns within the face-preferential cortical network but both have intact right mFG and a common lesion in the right IOG. In both cases, face-selectivity and face detection can operate with an intact right mFG but modulation for face identity within this region appears to be affected by the loss of the right IOG.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.263 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of VisionSame topicFace Recognition and PerceptionFrench-language works237,207