126.1 Rubin & Miller did a good job on surround integration. The contrast-size interaction itself is not that new. However, with other data, the authors do provide a good understanding of the surround effect.
126.3 So, the orientation tuning of visual cortical neurons can be derived from Moire interference on retinal input. This is too good to be true.
128.10 Fedorenko & Kanwisher showed that there is no language specific areas. Any know language areas also showed activation to a wide array of different cognitive tasks.
I am convinced that there is no specific language areas, at least no reading areas. However, reviewers complained every single time when I made a statement like that. This study is more comprehensive than what I did so far. I expect this study, once published, will have much impact and arouse a heated debate in psycho- and neuro-linguistic research.
226.1 Lewis et al. used resting state function connectivity to show that the normal control and the amblyopic connectivity is similar between different visual areas but different in self connectivity with areas in V1 to V3.
226.5 Tanifuji et al. use SVM on single cell recording data from almost 40 sits. They showed that the structure cluster is similar to functional cluster when compared faces with non-faces. However, to tell human faces from monkey faces, features from both face and non-face regions are required.
226.7 Saygin et al. suggested that the diffusion connectivity to the FFA would be different from the rest of the fusiform. Therefore, it is possible to identify FFA from the rest of the FG by classifying connection from other brain areas to FG against other FG areas.
I wonder whether this paradigm would work for VWFA as well.
226.9 VWFA respond to lumiannce-defined, contour defined and motion defined words. HMT responds only to motion defined words. However hMT is necessary for motion defined words
沒有留言:
張貼留言