When we contrasted the response to auditory Angiogenesis inhibitor information against baseline, the broad auditory cortex was highlighted bilaterally. A voice-selective response was confined to the upper banks of the bilateral STS; regions that appear to correspond with the ‘TVAs’ identified by Belin et al. (2000) and Belin, Fecteau, and Bédard (2004). Maximum voice-selectivity was found in the mid-STS, a result which has been found in a number of other studies (e.g., Belin et al., 2002, Belin et al.,
2000 and Kreifelts et al., 2009). The ‘voice-selective’ regions of the STS tend to show a greater response to vocal sounds than to non-vocal sounds from natural sources, or acoustical controls such as scrambled voices or amplitude-modulated noise. This response is also observed for vocal sounds of non-linguistic content (Belin et al., 2011 and Belin et al., 2002), highlighting that these regions process more than just the speech content of voice. In a voice recognition study, von Kriegstein and Giraud (2004) delineated three distinct areas along the right STS involved in different aspects of voice processing:
whereas the mid-anterior STS carries http://www.selleckchem.com/products/PLX-4032.html out a spectral analysis of voices, more posterior and anterior areas emphasise more paralinguistic voice processing – for example, identity. We also identified the right precuneus as a voice-selective region in this experiment. Although perhaps less commonly found than the TVA, activation of the precuneus has been apparent in a number of studies investigating voice perception (e.g., von Kriegstein et al., 2003 and Sokhi et al., 2005). The visual versus baseline contrast showed activation maps covering most of the visual ventral stream, including Selleckchem Y-27632 early visual cortex (V1:3), V4, V5/MT, the fusiform and parahippocampal gyri and an extensive part of the human
inferior temporal (IT) gyrus. This is consistent with the vast majority of research studying visual responsiveness. Face-selectivity was found in a network of regions, including the extensive right STS, left pSTS to mid-STS, the MFG, precuneus and caudate – all regions which have been associated with either the core or extended face-processing system (e.g., Andrews et al., 2010, Haxby et al., 2000 and Rossion et al., 2003). Notably, at the set-threshold for the group-level analysis, the commonly found FFAs did not emerge, although these regions – along with the bilateral occipital face areas (OFAs) – did appear for a number of individual participants, as well as at the group level at an uncorrected cluster threshold. Instead, the strongest response appeared to be in the STG/STS – particularly, the right pSTS. In our experiment, we used only dynamic faces, in an attempt to maximise the ecological validity of our stimuli.