Functional Specialization and Convergence in the Occipito-temporal Cortex Supporting Haptic and Visual Identification of Human Faces and Body Parts: An fMRI Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Humans can recognize common objects by touch extremely well whenever vision is unavailable. Despite its importance to a thorough understanding of human object recognition, the neuroscientific study of this topic has been relatively neglected. To date, the few published studies have addressed the haptic recognition of nonbiological objects. We now focus on haptic recognition of the human body, a particularly salient object category for touch. Neuroimaging studies demonstrate that regions of the occipito-temporal cortex are specialized for visual perception of faces (fusiform face area, FFA) and other body parts (extrastriate body area, EBA). Are the same category-sensitive regions activated when these components of the body are recognized haptically? Here, we use fMRI to compare brain organization for haptic and visual recognition of human body parts. Sixteen subjects identified exemplars of faces, hands, feet, and nonbiological control objects using vision and haptics separately. We identified two discrete regions within the fusiform gyrus (FFA and the haptic face region) that were each sensitive to both haptically and visually presented faces; however, these two regions differed significantly in their response patterns. Similarly, two regions within the lateral occipito-temporal area (EBA and the haptic body region) were each sensitive to body parts in both modalities, although the response patterns differed. Thus, although the fusiform gyrus and the lateral occipito-temporal cortex appear to exhibit modality-independent, category-sensitive activity, our results also indicate a degree of functional specialization related to sensory modality within these structures.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".