Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
    • Information for Authors
    • Fees
    • Journal Clubs
    • eLetters
    • Submit
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Advertise
    • For the Media
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Feedback
  • SUBSCRIBE

User menu

  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Neuroscience
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Neuroscience

Advanced Search

Submit a Manuscript
  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
    • Information for Authors
    • Fees
    • Journal Clubs
    • eLetters
    • Submit
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Advertise
    • For the Media
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Feedback
  • SUBSCRIBE
PreviousNext
Articles, Behavioral/Systems/Cognitive

Many Faces of Expertise: Fusiform Face Area in Chess Experts and Novices

Merim Bilalić, Robert Langner, Rolf Ulrich and Wolfgang Grodd
Journal of Neuroscience 13 July 2011, 31 (28) 10206-10214; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5727-10.2011
Merim Bilalić
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Robert Langner
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Rolf Ulrich
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Wolfgang Grodd
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Additional Files
  • Figure 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1.

    Experiment 1: stimuli, design, fMRI, and behavioral results. A, Pictures of chess positions or student faces were presented upright or inverted. Participants had to indicate whether the currently presented stimulus matched previously presented stimulus (one-back task). B, Diagram depicting the trial structure in experiment 1. There were two classes of stimuli (chess and faces) and two locations (upright and inverted), for a total of four conditions. All four conditions were presented in each of the three runs four times (12 blocks of each condition in all runs). Blocks included five stimuli (S1–S5), each lasting 1.75 s with a 0.25 s gap between them. C, Time (in seconds) experts and novices needed to match face and chess stimuli when they were presented upright or inverted in experiment 1. RT, Reaction time. D, Activation levels (percentage signal change relative to baseline) in the right FFA in experts and novices on the chess and face stimuli depending on the location in experiment 1. Error bars indicate SEM.

  • Figure 2.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 2.

    Experiment 2: stimuli, design, fMRI, and behavioral results. A, The chess stimuli and tasks used in experiment 2. Participants had to indicate whether the white king was in check in the Check task, whether there were knights of both colors presented in the Knight task, and whether two dots (black and white) were present in the Control (dot) task. In all three tasks, there were two types of positions: normal (taken from chess games of masters) and random (pieces were randomly distributed on the board). B, Diagram depicting the trial structure in experiment 2. We first presented a baseline (a starting board with all pieces at their initial location with a fixating cross) in which duration was jittered (6–10 s). After a short gap (0.5 s), the target stimulus was presented, which lasted until the press. S1–S5, First through fifth stimulus. C, Time (in seconds) experts and novices took to complete the check, knight, and control (dot) tasks, depending on the type of position in experiment 2. RT, Reaction time. D, Activation levels (percentage signal change relative to baseline) in the right FFA in experts and novices when executing the check, knight, and control (dot) tasks depending on the type of position in experiment 2. Error bars indicate SEM.

  • Figure 3.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 3.

    Experiment 3: stimuli, design, fMRI, and behavioral results. A, The chess stimuli and tasks used in experiment 3. Participants had to count the number of times black could take white pieces in the threats task, the number of knights and bishops in the knights and bishops task, and the number of all pieces on the board in the control (all) task. In all three tasks there were two types of positions: normal (taken from chess games of masters) and random (pieces were randomly distributed on the board). B, Diagram depicting the trial structure in experiment 3. The baseline stimulus was an initial chess board configuration with a fixation cross; its duration was jittered. A gap in stimulus presentation was used as a warning about the upcoming stimulus. The actual chess stimulus (normal and random positions) was then presented. After the players indicated their answers by pressing one of the response buttons, the baseline stimulus of the next trial was presented. C, Time (in seconds) experts and novices took to complete the threats, knights and bishops, and control tasks depending on the type of position in experiment 3. RT, Reaction time. D, Activation levels (percentage signal change relative to baseline) in the right FFA in experts and novices when completing the threats, knights and bishops, and control tasks depending on the type of position in experiment 3. Error bars indicate SEM.

Tables

  • Figures
  • Additional Files
    • View popup
    Table 1.

    Participantss

    ExperimentGroupAge ± SDElo ± SDSDs above meann
    IExpert30 ± 22117 ± 5337
    Novice28 ± 1——8
    IIExpert30 ± 22117 ± 5337
    Novice29 ± 1——7
    IIIExpert31 ± 22114 ± 6336
    Novice29 ± 1——7
    • Group, mean age, and mean skill level as measured by the Elo rating (see Materials and Methods) with SD, number of SD above the mean, and number of players in each group in all four experiments.

Additional Files

  • Figures
  • Tables
  • Supplemental Material

    Files in this Data Supplement:

    • supplemental material - Supplemental Material
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of Neuroscience: 31 (28)
Journal of Neuroscience
Vol. 31, Issue 28
13 Jul 2011
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
  • Advertising (PDF)
  • Ed Board (PDF)
Email

Thank you for sharing this Journal of Neuroscience article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Many Faces of Expertise: Fusiform Face Area in Chess Experts and Novices
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Journal of Neuroscience
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Journal of Neuroscience.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
View Full Page PDF
Citation Tools
Many Faces of Expertise: Fusiform Face Area in Chess Experts and Novices
Merim Bilalić, Robert Langner, Rolf Ulrich, Wolfgang Grodd
Journal of Neuroscience 13 July 2011, 31 (28) 10206-10214; DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5727-10.2011

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Respond to this article
Request Permissions
Share
Many Faces of Expertise: Fusiform Face Area in Chess Experts and Novices
Merim Bilalić, Robert Langner, Rolf Ulrich, Wolfgang Grodd
Journal of Neuroscience 13 July 2011, 31 (28) 10206-10214; DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5727-10.2011
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Responses to this article

Respond to this article

Jump to comment:

No eLetters have been published for this article.

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

Articles

  • Choice Behavior Guided by Learned, But Not Innate, Taste Aversion Recruits the Orbitofrontal Cortex
  • Maturation of Spontaneous Firing Properties after Hearing Onset in Rat Auditory Nerve Fibers: Spontaneous Rates, Refractoriness, and Interfiber Correlations
  • Insulin Treatment Prevents Neuroinflammation and Neuronal Injury with Restored Neurobehavioral Function in Models of HIV/AIDS Neurodegeneration
Show more Articles

Behavioral/Systems/Cognitive

  • Influence of Reward on Corticospinal Excitability during Movement Preparation
  • Identification and Characterization of a Sleep-Active Cell Group in the Rostral Medullary Brainstem
  • Gravin Orchestrates Protein Kinase A and β2-Adrenergic Receptor Signaling Critical for Synaptic Plasticity and Memory
Show more Behavioral/Systems/Cognitive
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Facebook
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on Twitter
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on LinkedIn
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Youtube
  • Follow our RSS feeds

Content

  • Early Release
  • Current Issue
  • Issue Archive
  • Collections

Information

  • For Authors
  • For Advertisers
  • For the Media
  • For Subscribers

About

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact
(JNeurosci logo)
(SfN logo)

Copyright © 2023 by the Society for Neuroscience.
JNeurosci Online ISSN: 1529-2401

The ideas and opinions expressed in JNeurosci do not necessarily reflect those of SfN or the JNeurosci Editorial Board. Publication of an advertisement or other product mention in JNeurosci should not be construed as an endorsement of the manufacturer’s claims. SfN does not assume any responsibility for any injury and/or damage to persons or property arising from or related to any use of any material contained in JNeurosci.