Faces or places at any ROI size. We additionally performed a modified version of our analysis, which is sensitive to subject-unique activation profiles. This analysis again Varlitinib web showed a significant category step for right FFA and right and left PPA at all ROI sizes. Left FFA now showed a significant category step at three of five ROI sizes ( p 0.05, with p 0.0025 for 55 voxels). There was no evidence for a category step in hIT and EVC. Results for gradedness within the preferred category (Fig. 6 B) were consistent with the results on the replicability of withincategory ranking reported in the previous section (Fig. 5B). Bothleft and right FFA showed graded within-face activation profiles. Left FFA showed gradedness at the smallest two ROI sizes ( p 0.0025) and right FFA at all ROI sizes ( p 0.0025) except the largest one. Right but not left PPA showed a graded within-place activation profile at three of five ROI sizes ( p 0.0025 for 23 voxels, p 0.05 for 55 and 128 voxels). hIT and EVC showed graded within-place but not within-face activation LLY-507 supplier profiles at most or all ROI sizes ( p 0.05, with p 0.0025 in several cases). The subject-unique analysis showed similar results for FFA and PPA. For hIT and EVC, gradedness within places disappeared, while gradedness within faces remained absent. The lack of within-place and within-face gradedness in hIT for the subject-unique analysis forms the only inconsistency with the replicability-of-withincategory-ranking results (Fig. 5B, left column), and suggests that the subject-unique activation profiles for faces and places in hIT do not fall off linearly. (The category-step-and-gradedness analysis modeled the falloff of activation as linear within preferred and within nonpreferred categories, whereas the replicability-ofwithin-category-ranking analysis is sensitive to nonlinear graded activation profiles.) Category-selective regions FFA and PPA also showed graded activation profiles for nonpreferred images at most ROI sizes (Fig. 6 B). This effect likely reflects both between- and withincategory activation differences among the nonpreferred images. In any case, this finding indicates that the activation profile of category-selective regions is graded for images outside the preferred category. hIT and EVC did not show graded activation profiles for nonplaces or nonfaces (except for nonfaces in EVC at the smallest ROI size, p 0.05, data not shown). The subjectunique group analysis showed similar results for FFA. For PPA, gradedness within nonplaces disappeared at most ROI sizes. Results for hIT did not change, while EVC now exhibited gradedness within nonfaces and nonplaces at a small number of ROI sizes ( p 0.05). In sum, our findings indicate that the category boundary has a special status in category-selective regions, especially in right FFA and right and left PPA. The presence of a drop-off of activation at the category boundary in the absence of gradedness would suggest a binary response profile. However, category-selective regions showed gradedness of activation within (except left PPA) and outside the preferred category in addition to the category step at the boundary. This suggests that a binary response function is not sufficient to explain the activation profiles of categoryselective regions. Correlation of activation profiles across regions Our results suggest functional similarities between certain regions, which we explored further by rank-correlating activation profiles between ROIs (Fig. 7).Faces or places at any ROI size. We additionally performed a modified version of our analysis, which is sensitive to subject-unique activation profiles. This analysis again showed a significant category step for right FFA and right and left PPA at all ROI sizes. Left FFA now showed a significant category step at three of five ROI sizes ( p 0.05, with p 0.0025 for 55 voxels). There was no evidence for a category step in hIT and EVC. Results for gradedness within the preferred category (Fig. 6 B) were consistent with the results on the replicability of withincategory ranking reported in the previous section (Fig. 5B). Bothleft and right FFA showed graded within-face activation profiles. Left FFA showed gradedness at the smallest two ROI sizes ( p 0.0025) and right FFA at all ROI sizes ( p 0.0025) except the largest one. Right but not left PPA showed a graded within-place activation profile at three of five ROI sizes ( p 0.0025 for 23 voxels, p 0.05 for 55 and 128 voxels). hIT and EVC showed graded within-place but not within-face activation profiles at most or all ROI sizes ( p 0.05, with p 0.0025 in several cases). The subject-unique analysis showed similar results for FFA and PPA. For hIT and EVC, gradedness within places disappeared, while gradedness within faces remained absent. The lack of within-place and within-face gradedness in hIT for the subject-unique analysis forms the only inconsistency with the replicability-of-withincategory-ranking results (Fig. 5B, left column), and suggests that the subject-unique activation profiles for faces and places in hIT do not fall off linearly. (The category-step-and-gradedness analysis modeled the falloff of activation as linear within preferred and within nonpreferred categories, whereas the replicability-ofwithin-category-ranking analysis is sensitive to nonlinear graded activation profiles.) Category-selective regions FFA and PPA also showed graded activation profiles for nonpreferred images at most ROI sizes (Fig. 6 B). This effect likely reflects both between- and withincategory activation differences among the nonpreferred images. In any case, this finding indicates that the activation profile of category-selective regions is graded for images outside the preferred category. hIT and EVC did not show graded activation profiles for nonplaces or nonfaces (except for nonfaces in EVC at the smallest ROI size, p 0.05, data not shown). The subjectunique group analysis showed similar results for FFA. For PPA, gradedness within nonplaces disappeared at most ROI sizes. Results for hIT did not change, while EVC now exhibited gradedness within nonfaces and nonplaces at a small number of ROI sizes ( p 0.05). In sum, our findings indicate that the category boundary has a special status in category-selective regions, especially in right FFA and right and left PPA. The presence of a drop-off of activation at the category boundary in the absence of gradedness would suggest a binary response profile. However, category-selective regions showed gradedness of activation within (except left PPA) and outside the preferred category in addition to the category step at the boundary. This suggests that a binary response function is not sufficient to explain the activation profiles of categoryselective regions. Correlation of activation profiles across regions Our results suggest functional similarities between certain regions, which we explored further by rank-correlating activation profiles between ROIs (Fig. 7).
