Stently activated FFA more strongly than others. The were corrected for multiple [five] comparisons using PP58MedChemExpress PP58 Bonferroni significant results for group-average activation profiles further correction). Right FFA showed a similar tendency, but results did suggest that within-face activation profiles were similar across the not reach significance. Other regions did not show differential four subjects. This conclusion was supported by visual inspection activation to human versus animal faces. For places, an intuitive of single-subject within-face activation profiles and by intersubsubdivision would be natural versus man-made places. A twoject correlation analyses. Effects were somewhat stronger in left sided t test investigating this distinction did not yield significant than right FFA. Control regions hIT and EVC showed replicable results in any of our ROIs. Consistent with this, a recent patternwithin-face ranking as well, but only for concatenated single-subject information study reported that the natural/manmade distincactivation profiles. This suggests that activation profiles were not8656 ?J. Neurosci., June 20, 2012 ?32(25):8649 ?Mur et al. ?Single-Image Activation of Category RegionsFigure 4. No evidence for any inversions of category preference for particular image pairs in PPA or FFA. Figure 3 showed that most inverted pairs do not replicate. This leaves open the possibility that some inverted pairs do replicate. Here we test the apparently inverted pairs with the largest activation difference (which are least likely to be inverted by noise), using independent data. A, Computation of the average replicated gap. We first find all inverted pairs using session 1 data (step 1). We then sort these pairs according to the size of the activation gap, from the inverted pairs with the largest gaps to the inverted pairs with the smallest gaps (step 2). We estimate the activation gaps for all session 1 inverted pairs using the independent data from session 2 (step 3). Note that these gap estimates are negative for session 1 inverted pairs that do not replicate. For each number k 1…n of session-1 largest-gap inverted pairs, we average the session 2 gap estimates. We then plot these session 2 average replicated gaps versus k (step 4). We also perform this analysis with sessions 1 and 2 in reverse order and average results from the two directions (without assuming independence of the directions in statistical inference). If there are very few true inverted pairs, the leftmost part of the average replicated gap function has the greatest power to reveal these. If there are more true inverted pairs, averaging replicated gaps for more pairs has greater power for revealing the presence of true inverted pairs. B, The average replicated gap (black solid lines) is plotted as a function of the number of largest-gap inverted pairs for FFA, PPA, and EVC. The dark gray error regions indicate / 1 SE of the estimate. If the average replicated gap function does not emerge into the positive range (above the dashed black line), then even the most promising inverted pairs tend to revert to category-preferential order. If the average replicated gap exceeds the pink or red lines, then there is evidence for truly inverted pairs at p 0.05 (pink line) or p 0.01 (red line) and the peak is marked by a circle whose color indicates the level of significance in the same way. The significance thresholds for the peak were computed by Monte Carlo PP58 manufacturer simulation, accounting for multi.Stently activated FFA more strongly than others. The were corrected for multiple [five] comparisons using Bonferroni significant results for group-average activation profiles further correction). Right FFA showed a similar tendency, but results did suggest that within-face activation profiles were similar across the not reach significance. Other regions did not show differential four subjects. This conclusion was supported by visual inspection activation to human versus animal faces. For places, an intuitive of single-subject within-face activation profiles and by intersubsubdivision would be natural versus man-made places. A twoject correlation analyses. Effects were somewhat stronger in left sided t test investigating this distinction did not yield significant than right FFA. Control regions hIT and EVC showed replicable results in any of our ROIs. Consistent with this, a recent patternwithin-face ranking as well, but only for concatenated single-subject information study reported that the natural/manmade distincactivation profiles. This suggests that activation profiles were not8656 ?J. Neurosci., June 20, 2012 ?32(25):8649 ?Mur et al. ?Single-Image Activation of Category RegionsFigure 4. No evidence for any inversions of category preference for particular image pairs in PPA or FFA. Figure 3 showed that most inverted pairs do not replicate. This leaves open the possibility that some inverted pairs do replicate. Here we test the apparently inverted pairs with the largest activation difference (which are least likely to be inverted by noise), using independent data. A, Computation of the average replicated gap. We first find all inverted pairs using session 1 data (step 1). We then sort these pairs according to the size of the activation gap, from the inverted pairs with the largest gaps to the inverted pairs with the smallest gaps (step 2). We estimate the activation gaps for all session 1 inverted pairs using the independent data from session 2 (step 3). Note that these gap estimates are negative for session 1 inverted pairs that do not replicate. For each number k 1…n of session-1 largest-gap inverted pairs, we average the session 2 gap estimates. We then plot these session 2 average replicated gaps versus k (step 4). We also perform this analysis with sessions 1 and 2 in reverse order and average results from the two directions (without assuming independence of the directions in statistical inference). If there are very few true inverted pairs, the leftmost part of the average replicated gap function has the greatest power to reveal these. If there are more true inverted pairs, averaging replicated gaps for more pairs has greater power for revealing the presence of true inverted pairs. B, The average replicated gap (black solid lines) is plotted as a function of the number of largest-gap inverted pairs for FFA, PPA, and EVC. The dark gray error regions indicate / 1 SE of the estimate. If the average replicated gap function does not emerge into the positive range (above the dashed black line), then even the most promising inverted pairs tend to revert to category-preferential order. If the average replicated gap exceeds the pink or red lines, then there is evidence for truly inverted pairs at p 0.05 (pink line) or p 0.01 (red line) and the peak is marked by a circle whose color indicates the level of significance in the same way. The significance thresholds for the peak were computed by Monte Carlo simulation, accounting for multi.