2009 Alina Liberman - Revision history

imported>Psych 204 at 20:37, 25 August 2010

2010-08-25T20:37:51Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:37, 25 August 2010
Line 17:		Line 17:
	An ongoing follow-up study with a new set of subjects and stimuli replicates the right FFA results, except that we find a significantly smaller right FFA in adolescents ages 12-16. This result suggests that cortical development for face processing continues beyond childhood and into adolescence. What may account for this difference in results? In addition to slightly different stimuli, the original study had different analysis methods for their fMRI data. The original study had bigger voxels (3.75mm x 3.75mm vs. 3.125mm x 3.125mm in-plane resolution) and spatially smoothed the data using a 6mm full-width-half-maximum kernel. Scherf et al.(2007) also only found a differences in the magnitude of face-specific activation and extent of activation in the FFA as well as the posterior STS (unlike in Golarai et al.) in kids but not adolescents, but this study spatially normalized their data into Talairach space.		An ongoing follow-up study with a new set of subjects and stimuli replicates the right FFA results, except that we find a significantly smaller right FFA in adolescents ages 12-16. This result suggests that cortical development for face processing continues beyond childhood and into adolescence. What may account for this difference in results? In addition to slightly different stimuli, the original study had different analysis methods for their fMRI data. The original study had bigger voxels (3.75mm x 3.75mm vs. 3.125mm x 3.125mm in-plane resolution) and spatially smoothed the data using a 6mm full-width-half-maximum kernel. Scherf et al.(2007) also only found a differences in the magnitude of face-specific activation and extent of activation in the FFA as well as the posterior STS (unlike in Golarai et al.) in kids but not adolescents, but this study spatially normalized their data into Talairach space.

	==Research ~~Question~~==		==Research Questions==
	I have been working on the ongoing follow-up study to Golarai et al. (2007), mentioned above, in Kalanit Grill-Spector's lab in collaboration with Golijeh Golarai and Davie Yoon. Our analysis are done in native subject space using unsmoothed data, but some labs doing similar work use spatially normalized and smoothed data (and sometimes get different results, as mentioned above in Scherf et al.(2007)). I was curious if using two different analysis methods could result in different conclusions, so I asked the following questions:		I have been working on the ongoing follow-up study to Golarai et al. (2007), mentioned above, in Kalanit Grill-Spector's lab in collaboration with Golijeh Golarai and Davie Yoon. Our analysis are done in native subject space using unsmoothed data, but some labs doing similar work use spatially normalized and smoothed data (and sometimes get different results, as mentioned above in Scherf et al.(2007)). I was curious if using two different analysis methods could result in different conclusions, so I asked the following questions:
	<ol>		<ol>

imported>Psych 204: /* Background and Development */

2010-08-25T20:37:12Z

Background and Development

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:37, 25 August 2010
Line 15:		Line 15:
	</gallery>		</gallery>

	An ongoing follow-up study with a new set of subjects and stimuli replicates the right FFA results, except that we find a significantly smaller right FFA in adolescents ages 12-16. This result suggests that cortical development for face processing continues beyond childhood and into adolescence. What may account for this difference in results? In addition to slightly different stimuli, the original study had different analysis methods for their fMRI data. The original study had bigger voxels (3.75mm x 3.75mm vs. 3.125mm x 3.125mm in-plane resolution) and spatially smoothed the data using a 6mm full-width-half-maximum kernel. Scherf et al.(2007) also only found a differences in the magnitude of face-specific activation and extent of activation in the ~~right~~ FFA in kids but not adolescents, but this study spatially normalized their data into Talairach space~~. The Scherf study also found similar differences between kids and adults in the posterior STS, but Golarai et al. did not~~.		An ongoing follow-up study with a new set of subjects and stimuli replicates the right FFA results, except that we find a significantly smaller right FFA in adolescents ages 12-16. This result suggests that cortical development for face processing continues beyond childhood and into adolescence. What may account for this difference in results? In addition to slightly different stimuli, the original study had different analysis methods for their fMRI data. The original study had bigger voxels (3.75mm x 3.75mm vs. 3.125mm x 3.125mm in-plane resolution) and spatially smoothed the data using a 6mm full-width-half-maximum kernel. Scherf et al.(2007) also only found a differences in the magnitude of face-specific activation and extent of activation in the FFA as well as the posterior STS (unlike in Golarai et al.) in kids but not adolescents, but this study spatially normalized their data into Talairach space.

	==Research Question==		==Research Question==

imported>Psych 204: /* Category-Selective Regions in the Ventral Temporal Cortex */

2010-08-25T20:35:33Z

Category-Selective Regions in the Ventral Temporal Cortex

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:35, 25 August 2010
Line 15:		Line 15:
	</gallery>		</gallery>

	An ongoing follow-up study with a new set of subjects and stimuli replicates the right FFA results, except that we find a significantly smaller right FFA in adolescents ages 12-16. This result suggests that cortical development for face processing continues beyond childhood and into adolescence. What may account for this difference in results? In addition to slightly different stimuli, the original study had different analysis methods for their fMRI data. The original study had bigger voxels (3.75mm x 3.75mm vs. 3.125mm x 3.125mm in-plane resolution) and spatially smoothed the data using a 6mm full-width-half-maximum kernel. Scherf et al.(2007) also only found a ~~significant difference~~ in the right FFA in kids but not adolescents, but this study spatially normalized their data into Talairach space.		An ongoing follow-up study with a new set of subjects and stimuli replicates the right FFA results, except that we find a significantly smaller right FFA in adolescents ages 12-16. This result suggests that cortical development for face processing continues beyond childhood and into adolescence. What may account for this difference in results? In addition to slightly different stimuli, the original study had different analysis methods for their fMRI data. The original study had bigger voxels (3.75mm x 3.75mm vs. 3.125mm x 3.125mm in-plane resolution) and spatially smoothed the data using a 6mm full-width-half-maximum kernel. Scherf et al.(2007) also only found a differences in the magnitude of face-specific activation and extent of activation in the right FFA in kids but not adolescents, but this study spatially normalized their data into Talairach space. The Scherf study also found similar differences between kids and adults in the posterior STS, but Golarai et al. did not.

	==Research Question==		==Research Question==
	I have been working on the ongoing follow-up study to Golarai et al. (2007), mentioned above, in Kalanit Grill-Spector's lab in collaboration with Golijeh Golarai and Davie Yoon. Our analysis are done in native subject space using unsmoothed data, but some labs doing similar work use spatially normalized and smoothed data. I ~~have been~~ curious ~~for some time~~ if ~~the~~ two different methods ~~would~~ result in different conclusions, so I asked the following questions:		I have been working on the ongoing follow-up study to Golarai et al. (2007), mentioned above, in Kalanit Grill-Spector's lab in collaboration with Golijeh Golarai and Davie Yoon. Our analysis are done in native subject space using unsmoothed data, but some labs doing similar work use spatially normalized and smoothed data (and sometimes get different results, as mentioned above in Scherf et al.(2007)). I was curious if using two different analysis methods could result in different conclusions, so I asked the following questions:
	<ol>		<ol>
	<li> How would the current data, analyzed in native space and without spatial smoothing, change if it was spatially smoothed and normalized?		<li> How would the current data, analyzed in native space and without spatial smoothing, change if it was spatially smoothed and normalized?

imported>Psych 204: /* Background and Development */

2010-08-25T20:26:20Z

Background and Development

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:26, 25 August 2010
Line 5:		Line 5:
	The ventral temporal cortex contains different regions that respond preferentially to faces more strongly than objects, objects more strongly than scrambled objects, and places more strongly than objects and faces.		The ventral temporal cortex contains different regions that respond preferentially to faces more strongly than objects, objects more strongly than scrambled objects, and places more strongly than objects and faces.

	The FFA is a region ~~that responds more strongly to faces than objects, and it is typically located~~ on the fusiform gyrus ~~in the ventral temporal cortex~~. It was first described as a module for face processing in Kanwisher et al. (1997). Since then, there has been a lot of debate about the properties of the FFA, including whether or not it processes other relevant and well-known objects.		The Fusiform Face Area (FFA) is a region in the occipitotemporal cortex (on the fusiform gyrus) that preferentially responds to visual face stimuli compared to place or object stimuli. It was first described as a module for face processing in Kanwisher et al. (1997). Since then, there has been a lot of debate about the properties of the FFA, including whether or not it processes other relevant and well-known objects.
	[[File:FFAlocalizer.JPG\|frameless\|center\|400px\| Example localized right FFA in an adolescent's brain]]<br>		[[File:FFAlocalizer.JPG\|frameless\|center\|400px\| Example localized right FFA in an adolescent's brain]]<br>

	~~The Fusiform Face Area (FFA) is a region in the occipitotemporal cortex that preferentially responds to visual face stimuli compared to place or object stimuli.~~ Golarai et al.(2007) found that the right FFA was significantly smaller in children (ages 7-11) than in adolescents (12-16) or adults (>18) (Figure 1 & 2). This size difference was not present for the right or left hemisphere face-selective superior temporal sulcus (STS) or object-selective lateral occipital complex area (LOC) (Figure 3). The left hemisphere place-selective parahippocampal place area (PPA) was also significantly smaller in children (Figure 3). These results support a region and category-specific development of high-level visual cortex for faces and places.		Golarai et al.(2007) found that the right FFA was significantly smaller in children (ages 7-11) than in adolescents (12-16) or adults (>18) (Figure 1 & 2). This size difference was not present for the right or left hemisphere face-selective superior temporal sulcus (STS) or object-selective lateral occipital complex area (LOC) (Figure 3). The left hemisphere place-selective parahippocampal place area (PPA) was also significantly smaller in children (Figure 3). These results support a region and category-specific development of high-level visual cortex for faces and places.
	<gallery widths=300px>		<gallery widths=300px>
	File:GolaraiFFAResults.JPG\| Figure 1		File:GolaraiFFAResults.JPG\| Figure 1
Line 15:		Line 15:
	</gallery>		</gallery>

	An ongoing follow-up study with a new set of subjects and stimuli replicates the right FFA results, except that we find a significantly smaller right FFA in adolescents ages 12-16. This result suggests that cortical development for face processing continues beyond childhood and into adolescence. What may account for this difference in results? In addition to slightly different stimuli, the original study had different analysis methods for their fMRI data. The original study had bigger voxels (3.75mm x 3.75mm vs. 3.125mm x 3.125mm in-plane resolution) and spatially smoothed the data using a 6mm full-width-half-maximum kernel. Scherf et al.(2007) also only found a significant difference in the right FFA in kids but not adolescents, but this study spatially normalized their data into Talairach space.		An ongoing follow-up study with a new set of subjects and stimuli replicates the right FFA results, except that we find a significantly smaller right FFA in adolescents ages 12-16. This result suggests that cortical development for face processing continues beyond childhood and into adolescence. What may account for this difference in results? In addition to slightly different stimuli, the original study had different analysis methods for their fMRI data. The original study had bigger voxels (3.75mm x 3.75mm vs. 3.125mm x 3.125mm in-plane resolution) and spatially smoothed the data using a 6mm full-width-half-maximum kernel. Scherf et al.(2007) also only found a significant difference in the right FFA in kids but not adolescents, but this study spatially normalized their data into Talairach space.

	==Research Question==		==Research Question==
	I have been working on the ongoing follow-up study to Golarai et al. (2007), mentioned above, in Kalanit Grill-Spector's lab in collaboration with Golijeh Golarai and Davie Yoon. Our analysis are done in native subject space using unsmoothed data, but some labs doing similar work use spatially normalized and smoothed data. I have been curious for some time if the two different methods would result in different conclusions, so I asked the following questions:		I have been working on the ongoing follow-up study to Golarai et al. (2007), mentioned above, in Kalanit Grill-Spector's lab in collaboration with Golijeh Golarai and Davie Yoon. Our analysis are done in native subject space using unsmoothed data, but some labs doing similar work use spatially normalized and smoothed data. I have been curious for some time if the two different methods would result in different conclusions, so I asked the following questions:

imported>Psych 204: /* Category-Selective Regions in the Ventral Temporal Cortex */

2010-08-25T20:25:19Z

Category-Selective Regions in the Ventral Temporal Cortex

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:25, 25 August 2010
Line 2:		Line 2:

	= Category-Selective Regions in the Ventral Temporal Cortex=		= Category-Selective Regions in the Ventral Temporal Cortex=
	== Background ==		== Background and Development==
	The ventral temporal cortex contains different regions that respond preferentially to faces more strongly than objects, objects more strongly than scrambled objects, and places more strongly than objects and faces.		The ventral temporal cortex contains different regions that respond preferentially to faces more strongly than objects, objects more strongly than scrambled objects, and places more strongly than objects and faces.

Line 8:		Line 8:
	[[File:FFAlocalizer.JPG\|frameless\|center\|400px\| Example localized right FFA in an adolescent's brain]]<br>		[[File:FFAlocalizer.JPG\|frameless\|center\|400px\| Example localized right FFA in an adolescent's brain]]<br>

	Golarai et al. (2007) ~~showed~~ that the right FFA (Figure 1 ~~and~~ 2) ~~and left PPA (Figure 3) are significantly smaller in children and that FFA~~ size ~~correlates with face-recognition memory performance on a recognition memory test for faces, abstract sculptures and places. No age~~ difference was ~~found in~~ face-selective STS or object-selective LOC (Figure 3).		The Fusiform Face Area (FFA) is a region in the occipitotemporal cortex that preferentially responds to visual face stimuli compared to place or object stimuli. Golarai et al.(2007) found that the right FFA was significantly smaller in children (ages 7-11) than in adolescents (12-16) or adults (>18) (Figure 1 & 2). This size difference was not present for the right or left hemisphere face-selective superior temporal sulcus (STS) or object-selective lateral occipital complex area (LOC) (Figure 3). The left hemisphere place-selective parahippocampal place area (PPA) was also significantly smaller in children (Figure 3). These results support a region and category-specific development of high-level visual cortex for faces and places.
	<gallery widths=300px>		<gallery widths=300px>
	File:GolaraiFFAResults.JPG\| Figure 1		File:GolaraiFFAResults.JPG\| Figure 1
Line 14:		Line 14:
	File:GolaraiOtherROIresults.JPG\| Figure 3		File:GolaraiOtherROIresults.JPG\| Figure 3
	</gallery>		</gallery>

	~~==Fusiform Face Area Development==~~
	The Fusiform Face Area (FFA) is a region in the occipitotemporal cortex that preferentially responds to visual face stimuli compared to place or object stimuli. Golarai et al.(2007) found that the right FFA was significantly smaller in children (ages 7-11) than in adolescents (12-16) or adults (>18). This size difference was not present for the right or left hemisphere face-selective superior temporal sulcus (STS) or object-selective lateral occipital complex area (LOC). The left hemisphere place-selective parahippocampal place area (PPA) was also significantly smaller in children. These results support a region and category-specific development of high-level visual cortex for faces and places.

	An ongoing follow-up study with a new set of subjects and stimuli replicates the right FFA results, except that we find a significantly smaller right FFA in adolescents ages 12-16. This result suggests that cortical development for face processing continues beyond childhood and into adolescence. What may account for this difference in results? In addition to slightly different stimuli, the original study had different analysis methods for their fMRI data. The original study had bigger voxels (3.75mm x 3.75mm vs. 3.125mm x 3.125mm in-plane resolution) and spatially smoothed the data using a 6mm full-width-half-maximum kernel. Scherf et al.(2007) also only found a significant difference in the right FFA in kids but not adolescents, but this study spatially normalized their data into Talairach space.		An ongoing follow-up study with a new set of subjects and stimuli replicates the right FFA results, except that we find a significantly smaller right FFA in adolescents ages 12-16. This result suggests that cortical development for face processing continues beyond childhood and into adolescence. What may account for this difference in results? In addition to slightly different stimuli, the original study had different analysis methods for their fMRI data. The original study had bigger voxels (3.75mm x 3.75mm vs. 3.125mm x 3.125mm in-plane resolution) and spatially smoothed the data using a 6mm full-width-half-maximum kernel. Scherf et al.(2007) also only found a significant difference in the right FFA in kids but not adolescents, but this study spatially normalized their data into Talairach space.

imported>Psych 204: /* Category-Selective Regions in the Ventral Temporal Cortex */

2010-08-25T20:21:40Z

Category-Selective Regions in the Ventral Temporal Cortex

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:21, 25 August 2010
Line 3:		Line 3:
	= Category-Selective Regions in the Ventral Temporal Cortex=		= Category-Selective Regions in the Ventral Temporal Cortex=
	== Background ==		== Background ==
	The ventral temporal cortex contains different regions that respond preferentially to faces more strongly than objects, objects more strongly than scrambled objects, or places more strongly than objects and faces.		The ventral temporal cortex contains different regions that respond preferentially to faces more strongly than objects, objects more strongly than scrambled objects, and places more strongly than objects and faces.

	The FFA is located on the fusiform gyrus in the ventral temporal cortex. It was first described as a module for face processing in Kanwisher et al. (1997). Since then, there has been a lot of debate about the properties of the FFA, including whether or not it processes other relevant and well-known objects.		The FFA is a region that responds more strongly to faces than objects, and it is typically located on the fusiform gyrus in the ventral temporal cortex. It was first described as a module for face processing in Kanwisher et al. (1997). Since then, there has been a lot of debate about the properties of the FFA, including whether or not it processes other relevant and well-known objects.
	[[File:FFAlocalizer.JPG\|frameless\|center\|400px\| Example localized right FFA in an adolescent's brain]]<br>		[[File:FFAlocalizer.JPG\|frameless\|center\|400px\| Example localized right FFA in an adolescent's brain]]<br>

Line 26:		Line 26:
	<li> Would there still be a significant age difference in the size of the right FFA between adolescents and adults?		<li> Would there still be a significant age difference in the size of the right FFA between adolescents and adults?
	</ol>		</ol>



	= fMRI Methods =		= fMRI Methods =

imported>Psych 204 at 20:20, 25 August 2010

2010-08-25T20:20:57Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:20, 25 August 2010
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Back to [[Psych204-Projects-2009 \|Psych 204 Projects 2009]]		Back to [[Psych204-Projects-2009 \|Psych 204 Projects 2009]]

	= Category-Selective Regions in the Ventral Temporal Cortex ~~Using mrVista and SPM~~ =		= Category-Selective Regions in the Ventral Temporal Cortex=
	== Background ==		== Background ==
	The ventral temporal cortex contains different regions that respond preferentially to faces more strongly than objects, objects more strongly than scrambled objects, or places more strongly than objects and faces.		The ventral temporal cortex contains different regions that respond preferentially to faces more strongly than objects, objects more strongly than scrambled objects, or places more strongly than objects and faces.

imported>Psych 204 at 20:20, 25 August 2010

2010-08-25T20:20:08Z

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 Back to [[Psych204-Projects-2009 |Psych 204 Projects 2009]]
-= Fusiform Face Area Development =
+= Category-Selective Regions in the Ventral Temporal Cortex Using mrVista and SPM =
 The Fusiform Face Area (FFA) is a region in the occipitotemporal cortex that preferentially responds to visual face stimuli compared to place or object stimuli. Golarai et al.(2007) found that the right FFA was significantly smaller in children (ages 7-11) than in adolescents (12-16) or adults (>18). This size difference was not present for the right or left hemisphere face-selective superior temporal sulcus (STS) or object-selective lateral occipital complex area (LOC). The left hemisphere place-selective parahippocampal place area (PPA) was also significantly smaller in children. These results support a region and category-specific development of high-level visual cortex for faces and places.
@@ Line 13: / Line 27: @@
 </ol>
 = fMRI Methods =

imported>Psych 204: /* fMRI Methods */

2010-08-25T20:16:28Z

fMRI Methods

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:16, 25 August 2010
Line 43:		Line 43:
	Functional data was motion corrected and data were detrended with a temporal high-pass filter. We converted the raw time course into percent signal change by dividing the response ampitude at each TR by the mean amplitude during the blank periods. There was no spatial smoothing or normalizing.		Functional data was motion corrected and data were detrended with a temporal high-pass filter. We converted the raw time course into percent signal change by dividing the response ampitude at each TR by the mean amplitude during the blank periods. There was no spatial smoothing or normalizing.

	The T1 anatomical scan was segmented for each subject in order to separate the gray and white matter. The inplane for the functional scan was aligned to the T1 anatomical, and all further processing was done with ~~the~~ voxels restricted to the gray matter.		The T1 anatomical scan was segmented for each subject in order to separate the gray and white matter. The inplane for the functional scan was aligned to the T1 anatomical, and all further processing was done using the T1 anatomical with voxels restricted to the gray matter.

	==== GLM ====		==== GLM ====
Line 49:		Line 49:

	====Functional ROI Creation====		====Functional ROI Creation====
	~~The~~ Fusiform Face Area was defined as voxels within the fusiform gyrus that ~~have~~ a significance of P<.001 for the contrast of (man and boy)>(cars and abstract objects). Place-selective and object-selective ROIs were also defined in ~~addition to face-selective ROIs~~. The Parahippocampal Place Area (PPA) was defined as (indoor and outdoor scenes)>(abstract objects and cars)~~. The~~ object-selective OTS (occipitotemporal sulcus) ROI was defined as (abstract objects and cars)> (scrambled images).		For each subject, the Fusiform Face Area was defined as voxels within the fusiform gyrus that had a significance of p<.001 for the contrast of (man and boy)>(cars and abstract objects). Place-selective and object-selective ROIs were also defined in each hemisphere. The Parahippocampal Place Area (PPA) was defined as (indoor and outdoor scenes)>(abstract objects and cars), and the object-selective OTS (occipitotemporal sulcus) ROI was defined as (abstract objects and cars)> (scrambled images).

	==SPM Analysis==		==SPM Analysis==

imported>Psych 204: /* SPM Analysis */

2010-08-25T20:14:07Z

SPM Analysis

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:14, 25 August 2010
Line 69:		Line 69:

	==== Pre-processing ====		==== Pre-processing ====
	Functional data was slice-time corrected, motion corrected and data were detrended with a temporal high-pass filter. Functional images were also realigned and coregistered to anatomical images. Each ~~subjects~~ anatomical images were normalized into a canonical MNI template, and these parameters were applied to the functional data.		Functional data was slice-time corrected, motion corrected and data were detrended with a temporal high-pass filter. Functional images were also realigned and coregistered to anatomical images. Each subject's anatomical images were normalized into a canonical MNI template, and these normalization parameters were also applied to the functional data.

	==== GLM ====		==== GLM ====
Line 75:		Line 75:

	====Functional ROI Creation====		====Functional ROI Creation====
	MarsBaR toolbox for SPM was used to define functional ROIs on group data. The Fusiform Face Area was defined as voxels in the fusiform gyrus that ~~have~~ a significance of P<.001 for the contrast of (faces)>(scenes).		MarsBaR toolbox for SPM was used to define functional ROIs on group data. The Fusiform Face Area was defined as voxels in the fusiform gyrus that had a significance of p<.001 for the contrast of (faces)>(scenes).

	= Results =		= Results =