Cited by 987Face Recognition and PerceptionVisual perception and processing mechanismsReading and Literacy Development

Differential sensitivity of human visual cortex to faces, letterstrings, and textures: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study

Open access
Puce, Aina, Allison, Truett, Asgari, Maryam, Gore, John C., McCarthy, Gregory·1996·The Journal of Neuroscience

Abstract

Twelve normal subjects viewed alternating sequences of unfamiliar faces, unpronounceable nonword letterstrings, and textures while echoplanar functional magnetic resonance images were acquired in seven slices extending from the posterior margin of the splenium to near the occipital pole. These stimuli were chosen to elicit initial category-specific processing in extrastriate cortex while minimizing semantic processing. Overall, faces evoked more activation than did letterstrings. Comparing hemispheres, faces evoked greater activation in the right than the left hemisphere, whereas letterstrings evoked greater activation in the left than the right hemisphere. Faces primarily activated the fusiform gyrus bilaterally, and also activated the right occipitotemporal and inferior occipital sulci and a region of lateral cortex centered in the middle temporal gyrus. Letterstrings primarily activated the left occipitotemporal and inferior occipital sulci. Textures primarily activated portions of the collateral sulcus. In the left hemisphere, 9 of the 12 subjects showed a characteristic pattern in which faces activated a discrete region of the lateral fusiform gyrus, whereas letterstrings activated a nearby region of cortex within the occipitotemporal and inferior occipital sulci. These results suggest that different regions of ventral extrastriate cortex are specialized for processing the perceptual features of faces and letterstrings, and that these regions are intermediate between earlier processing in striate and peristriate cortex, and later lexical, semantic, and associative processing in downstream cortical regions.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1523/jneurosci.16-16-05205.1996

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Puce et al. (1996) report that nine out of twelve subjects showed greater activation to words than to faces in the left occipitotemporal sulcus, although a neighboring but slightly more mesial site conversely showed preferential activation to faces than to words.

    “Puce et al. (1996) report single-subject activations during passive presentation of visual words, faces, and textures. Nine out of twelve subjects showed greater activation to words than to faces in the left occipitotemporal sulcus, although a neighboring but slightly more mesial site conversely showed preferential activation to faces than to words.”

    From Specialization within the ventral stream: the case for the visual word form area (2004) · cites this paper as Puce et al. (1996)

  • The region that activates to visual words is well delimited and occupies a fixed location relative to other regions that preferentially respond to faces, houses, or objects.

    “The region that activates to visual words is well delimited and occupies a fixed location relative to other regions that preferentially respond to faces, houses, or objects (Hasson et al., 2002, 2003; Puce et al., 1996).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 50 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Duvernoy H (1991) The human brain. New York: Springer.
  2. Zeki SM (1993) A vision of the brain. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Puce, A., Allison, T., Asgari, M., Gore, J. C., & McCarthy, G.
Affiliations
  • United States Department of Veterans Affairs (US)
  • Yale University (US)
Venue
The Journal of Neuroscience
Published
1996-08-15
Volume
16
Issue
16
Pages
5205-5215
ISSN
  • 0270-6474 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-2401
OpenAlex
W2172253232
Cited by
987
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 27 · 2017: 26 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 32 · 2014: 33 · 2013: 54 · 2012: 43
FWCI
16.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • IUScholarWorks (Indiana University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
  • National Institute of Mental Health (MH-05 286, R01MH005286)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Face Recognition and Perception
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
Keywords
face processing, texture processing, fusiform gyrus, extrastriate cortex, hemispheric lateralization, right hemisphere, collateral sulcus, middle temporal gyrus, ventral stream
MeSH terms
Adult, Brain Mapping, Face, Female, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Photic Stimulation, Visual Cortex, Visual Pathways

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review