Department of Psychology, Rutgers University, Newark, NJ 07102, USA.
Neuroimage. 2011 Jan 15;54(2):1715-34. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.08.028. Epub 2010 Aug 22.
Does the "fusiform face area" (FFA) code only for faces? This question continues to elude the neuroimaging field due to at least two kinds of problems: first, the relatively low spatial resolution of fMRI in which the FFA was defined and second, the potential bias inherent in prevailing statistical methods for analyzing the actual diagnosticity of cortical tissue. Using high-resolution (1 mm × 1 mm × 1 mm) imaging data of the fusiform face area (FFA) from 4 subjects who had categorized images as 'animal', 'car', 'face', or 'sculpture', we used multivariate linear and non-linear classifiers to decode the resultant voxel patterns. Prior to identifying the appropriate classifier we performed exploratory analysis to determine the nature of the distributions over classes and the voxel intensity pattern structure between classes. The FFA was visualized using non-metric multidimensional scaling revealing "string-like" sequences of voxels, which appeared in small non-contiguous clusters of categories, intertwined with other categories. Since this analysis suggested that feature space was highly non-linear, we trained various statistical classifiers on the class-conditional distributions (labelled) and separated the four categories with 100% reliability (over replications) and generalized to out-of-sample cases with high significance (up to 50%; p<.000001, chance=25%). The increased noise inherent in high-resolution neuroimaging data relative to standard resolution resisted any further gains in category performance above ~60% (with FACE category often having the highest bias per category) even coupled with various feature extraction/selection methods. A sensitivity/diagnosticity analysis for each classifier per voxel showed: (1) reliable (with S.E.<3%) sensitivity present throughout the FFA for all 4 categories, and (2) showed multi-selectivity; that is, many voxels were selective for more than one category with some high diagnosticity but at submaximal intensity. This work is clearly consistent with the characterization of the FFA as a distributed, object-heterogeneous similarity structure and bolsters the view that the FFA response to "FACE" stimuli in standard resolution may be primarily due to a linear bias, which has resulted from an averaging artefact.
梭状回面孔区(FFA)是否仅对面孔进行编码?由于至少存在两种问题,这个问题继续困扰着神经影像学领域:首先,定义 FFA 的 fMRI 空间分辨率相对较低;其次,用于分析皮质组织实际诊断能力的主流统计方法存在潜在偏差。我们使用 4 名受试者的高分辨率(1mm×1mm×1mm)梭状回面孔区(FFA)成像数据,这些受试者将图像分类为“动物”、“汽车”、“面孔”或“雕塑”,我们使用多元线性和非线性分类器对所得体素模式进行解码。在确定适当的分类器之前,我们进行了探索性分析,以确定类别之间的分布性质和体素强度模式结构。使用非度量多维缩放可视化 FFA,揭示出“串状”的体素序列,这些序列出现在类别小的不连续集群中,与其他类别交织在一起。由于这项分析表明特征空间高度非线性,因此我们在类别条件分布(标记)上训练了各种统计分类器,并以 100%的可靠性(重复)将四个类别分开,并推广到具有高显著性的样本外情况(高达 50%;p<.000001,机会=25%)。与标准分辨率相比,高分辨率神经影像学数据固有的增加噪声使得类别性能无法再提高到~60%以上(即使与各种特征提取/选择方法相结合,FACE 类别通常每个类别都具有最高的偏差)。对每个分类器的每个体素进行的敏感性/诊断性分析表明:(1)对于所有 4 个类别,FFA 中存在可靠的(S.E.<3%)敏感性;(2)表现出多选择性;也就是说,许多体素对多个类别具有选择性,其中一些具有较高的诊断性,但强度较低。这项工作显然与将 FFA 描述为分布式、对象异质相似性结构一致,并支持这样一种观点,即在标准分辨率下,FFA 对面孔“刺激”的反应主要是由于线性偏差,这是由于平均伪影造成的。