Hemispheric lateralization of visual word and face activation in the fusiform gyri
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Visual words and faces activate similar networks and particularly regions in the fusiform gyri, but with complementary hemispheric asymmetries, faces being lateralized more to the right hemisphere, and words to the left hemisphere. It has been suggested that this reflects developmental competition for neural resources between visual word and face processing, possibly with word lateralization occurring first and driving face lateralization later (Dundas et al, J Exp Psychol Gen 2012, oi: 10.1037/a0029503). OBJECTIVE: Our goal was to investigate whether such competition was reflected in an inverse correlation between the degree of lateralization of visual word and face activation in the fusiform gyri in a given subject. METHODS: 26 literate right-handed healthy adults underwent a functional MRI program with a dynamic face localizer and a word localizer. First, cluster size and peak responses of the visual word form areas and fusiform face areas in the left and right hemispheres were examined, and a lateralization index derived. These indices were then correlated across subjects, between visual words and faces. Second, the analysis was repeated for all face- and word-selective voxels in the inferior occipitotemporal cortex. RESULTS: There were no significant negative correlations between the lateralization indices of visual words and faces, in either the individual regions of interest or the inferior occipitotemporal cortex as a whole. CONCLUSION: If developmental competition between visual words and faces exists, this is not reflected in a complementary relationship between visual word and face activation in right-handed adults. This suggests the existence of other, perhaps more dominant factors that generate lateralization of function. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2013
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".