Article Figures & Data
Figures
- Figure 1.
Pseudoword training performance and semantic priming results. A, Mean accuracies and RTs for identification of pseudoword category across training sessions. B, RTs in the priming experiment completed after the eighth training session. Bars represent mean RT for the different priming conditions: DWSC, prime was different word, same subordinate category as target; DWDC, prime was different word, belonging to different subordinate category than target; DWDSC, different word, different superordinate category than target. Plot is grouped by category of the target word (animal or tool). Brackets indicate significant differences across priming conditions: *p < 0.05. Errors bars indicate SEM.
- Figure 2.
fMRI oddball task paradigm and MVPA analysis schematic. A, Subjects performed an oddball detection task in the scanner, in which they responded with a button press whenever a TPW for an oddball animal or tool category was presented (illustrated here by the green frame, which was not visible in the experiment). B, Classifiers were trained on β images estimated from five TPWs for each animal and tool category. The classifiers were then tested on β images generated from a separate set of five TPWs for each category.
- Figure 3.
Superordinate and basic level classification of TPW semantics in the LATL. A, Significantly above chance decoding of TPW superordinate category in LATL (MNI peak coordinates: −38, −4, −26). Color bar represents t statistic. Thresholded at a voxelwise p < 0.005 and cluster-level p < 0.05 (FWE-corrected). B, Basic level classification of animals (blue; peak coordinates: −48, −12, − 20) and tools (red; coordinates: −36, −18, −28) in distinct subregions of LATL. Thresholded at a voxelwise p < 0.005 and cluster-level p < 0.05 (FWE-corrected). For visualization purposes, other significant ROI (LIPL and rSFG, shown in Fig. 4) have been masked here.
- Figure 4.
Superordinate and basic level classification of TPW semantics in LIPL and rSFG. A, Classification of TPW superordinate category in LIPL (peak coordinates: −24, −44, 42). B, Basic level classification of tool TPW in LIPL (coordinates: −36, −64, 44). C, Basic level decoding of animal TPW in rSFG (coordinates: 10, −4, 56). Color bar represents t statistic. Thresholded at a voxelwise p < 0.005 and cluster-level p < 0.05 (FWE-corrected).
- Figure 5.
Functional connectivity of tool- and animal-selective subregions of LATL. A, Connectivity of the tool-selective LATL subregion. B, Connectivity of the animal-selective LATL subregion. C, The tool-selective subregion showed greater connectivity with left ventral premotor cortex and LIPL (but not right, data not shown) (orange/red), and the animal-selective subregion showed greater connectivity with bilateral middle temporal gyri (green/blue). Color bar represents t statistic. Thresholded at a voxelwise p < 0.005 (uncorrected) and cluster-level p < 0.05 (FWE-corrected).
Tables
- Table 1.
Location and cluster extent for all significant ROIs identified in the MVPA analysesa
Classification Region MNI coordinates (x, y, z) Extent (voxels) Superordinate LATL −38, −4, −26 476 LIPL −24, −44, 42 367 Basic level LATL (animals) −48, −12, −20 63 LATL (tools) −36, −18, −28 126 LIPL (tools) −36, −64, 44 683 rSFG (animals) 10, −4, 56 177 ↵aClusters are thresholded at a voxel-wise p < 0.005 and cluster-level p < 0.05, FWE-corrected.
