1; Table 2) Two-way (Stimulus, Group) analysis of variance of th

1; Table 2). Two-way (Stimulus, Group) analysis of variance of the extracted percent signal change in the right pars triangularis revealed a main effect of Stimulus (P < 0.001), with no effect of Group (P = 0.9) or interaction between Stimulus and Group (P = 0.5; see Fig. 1, right). All pairwise comparisons between stimuli are significant (Oldowan vs.

Control P = 0.001; Acheulean vs. Control P < 0.001; Acheulean vs. Oldowan P = 0.016). The exclusive masking procedure used to isolate brain responses to the observation of Toolmaking stimuli unique to each level of expertise identified clusters (Fig. 2; Table 2) in the bilateral ventral precentral gyrus and left middle occipital gyrus in the Naïve group, and in the left superior parietal and right postcentral gyrus of Experts. Activations unique to the Trained group were much more numerous particularly check details in the frontal cortices, including medial frontal cortex, the right pars orbitalis, left pars triangularis, bilateral pars opercularis, right anterior insula, left posterior middle frontal gyrus and left precentral gyrus, as well as left middle temporal gyrus and right inferior temporal gyrus. Rapamycin The minimum statistic conjunction

between the three groups for the contrast Acheulean–Oldowan identified increases in activity in the anterior part of the left intraparietal sulcus (Fig. 3; Table 3), and in the left prefrontal cortex within the inferior frontal sulcus. In agreement with SPM whole-brain investigation, analysis of Guanylate cyclase 2C variance of activity extracted in these clusters indicated a main effect of the stimulus (both P < 0.001), while there was no effect of Group or interaction between Group and Stimulus (all P > 0.3) in these regions. Activity in Acheulean was significantly increased compared with Oldowan

(P < 0.001) and Control (P < 0.05) for the left prefrontal cortex cluster, and all pairwise comparisons were significant (P < 0.001) for the anterior intraparietal sulcus. In Naïve subjects, there were activations for Acheulean–Oldowan in the left frontal cortex, dorsally in the superior frontal gyrus and ventrally in the pars opercularis of the inferior frontal gyrus (Fig. 4; Table 3). The latter activation was in a similar location to that previously reported for the actual performance (as opposed to observation) of stone toolmaking (Stout & Chaminade, 2007). No cluster survived the thresholds used in this analysis for Trained subjects. In Experts (Fig. 4; Table 3), there were clusters in the right medial frontal and parietal cortices. The latter were localized in the inferior parietal lobule, and in the anterior intraparietal sulcus area hIP1 (Choi et al., 2006; see also Jubault et al., 2007). To identify brain systems involved in the observation of Paleolithic toolmaking, we examined contrasts of toolmaking observation with a control condition.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>