For primates, faces are among the most behaviorally salient and socially relevant visual stimuli (Leopold and Rhodes, 2010). Reflecting this importance , the primate brain contains multiple interconnected cortical areas specialized for face processing, the face-patch network (Tsao et al., 2006, 2008). The middle-lateral face patch (ML), one of the earliest nodes in the face processing hierarchy, consists of neurons highly selective for faces (Tsao et al., 2006). Half of ML neurons exhibit sensitivity for coarse contrast relationships between face regions such as vertical adjacency of a bright forehead region above a darker eye region (Ohayon et al., 2012). Such qualitative contrast signatures for faces have been shown to provide a computationally powerful means for face detection (Sinha, 2002; Viola and Jones, 2004; Gilad et al., 2009), the most fundamental computation for all subsequent face-processing (Tsao and Livingstone, 2008). The hierarchically early location of face patch ML and the functional specificity of ML neurons led us to hypothesize that ML neurons might be critical for detection of faces, but not objects, in natural scenes. Testing this hypothesis required development of a naturalistic and demanding face and object detection task, and monitoring of real-world face-detection performance during causal manipulation of face patch ML.

We first trained two macaques on a touchscreen-based object detection task. From a visual scene displayed on the touchscreen, subjects were required to select an object belonging to one of three target categories – human faces, macaque bodies (socially relevant control category represented near face patches; Popivanov et al., 2012), or shoes (newly learned object category that, like faces, exhibits high within-class similarity). The visual scene was composed of 24 objects, at one of ten visibility levels. To discourage the use of low-level features for solving the task, the face targets were randomly resized, rotated in-plane, and blended into a cluttered background at random locations (Figure 1A; see Materials and methods). Face patch ML was localized by functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) using a standard face localizer. To inactivate ML, we stereotaxically targeted its fMRI-identified coordinates and infused 5 μL (8 μL in one experiment) of muscimol (5 μg/μL), a GABA_A agonist. We co-infused the MR contrast agent gadolinium (Gd), the cortical spread of which closely tracks the diffusion extent of muscimol (Heiss et al., 2010; Wilke et al., 2012), as a surrogate tracer so that the extent of muscimol spread could be detected in an anatomical MR scan (Figure 1B). Overlap of muscimol diffusion with the functionally defined extent of ML was determined post-hoc by aligning the post-injection anatomical volume and previous functional scan data (see Materials and methods; Figure 1B–D).

The goal of the injections was to inactivate as much of ML as possible, with as little inactivation of outside regions as possible – with the converse goal for the off-target injections. To determine how well these goals were met, we computed the percentage overlap of injections with ML and the fraction of ML volume overlapping with the injection (Figure 1D). First, we determined the average volume of ML exceeding a threshold of t > 20 as ~58 mm³, corresponding to a ~5 mm-diameter sphere, consistent with published neurophysiological data (Aparicio et al., 2016). The average volume of the injection at a threshold of 50% peak Gd brightness was ~37 mm³, corresponding to a ~4 mm-diameter sphere. At the chosen thresholds, the theoretical maximum of volumetric ML coverage by the injection, assuming concentric spheres for both volumes, is 63.8%. We achieved 44% coverage on average. Of the total injection volume, 76% was contained within the ML volume (Figure 1D). The high overlap of target injections with ML suggests that we silenced a large fraction of highly face-selective neurons, primarily found in the center of the face patches (Aparicio et al., 2016). The corresponding numbers for off-target injections were 4% ML coverage with 10% of the injection contained within ML. It is thus unlikely that off-target injections, although overlapping slightly with ML, silenced many face-selective neurons. The subject was transferred to its home cage to perform the detection tasks between ~1 and 3 hr after muscimol injection and subsequent anatomical scan, well within the time period of maximal muscimol effects (~0.5 hr to ~4 hr) (Hikosaka and Wurtz, 1985; Lomber, 1999; Dias and Segraves, 1999; Sommer and Wurtz, 2004). In a typical experimental sequence, we gathered baseline performance data on Day 1, inactivation data on Day 2, and recovery data on Day 3 or 4.

We first compared average face-detection performance across all 11 inactivation sessions (two monkeys, three hemispheres) and their corresponding baseline sessions. Face-detection performance was reduced by ~11% during ML inactivation (pooled over all visibilities and sessions, p<0.001, paired t-test after logit transform). Separated by visibility level, these performance decrements were significant for 9 out of 10 visibility levels at p<0.05 (FDR-corrected paired t-tests after logit transform; Figure 2A). A comparison of single session performances during baseline and inactivation showed this performance reduction to be uniform across visibility levels (Figure 2B): it was well-described by a line (R² = 0.74; p<0.001) parallel to the diagonal (slope = 0.96) with a significant negative offset (p<0.001), providing a second, visibility-independent, single-session level estimate of the performance deficit of ~15%. In Figure 2C and D, we plot the same quantities as above separated into each hemisphere and animal to demonstrate that the reduction in performance was consistent between subjects and inactivated hemispheres. At the single-hemisphere level, we observed significant differences mainly at intermediate visibility levels (p<0.05; FDR-corrected paired t-test after logit transform). Thus, inactivation of 1 out of 12 temporal lobe face patches (Tsao et al., 2008) caused a significant and sizable reduction in face-detection performance.

To determine which behavioral parameters were affected by inactivation, psychometric functions (Equation 1 in Materials and methods; Wichmann and Hill, 2001) with three parameters – shift along the abscissa (α), slope (β), and lapse rate (λ, the difference between maximum and perfect performance) - were then fit to each session’s performance data (R² > 0.9 for face detection in all sessions). Shift (α) and lapse rate (λ) were significantly higher in the inactivated conditions (p<0.001 and p = 0.016 respectively; paired t-test) than during baseline (red disks in Figure 2E; Figure 2F). In other words, during inactivation, the psychometric function was shifted rightwards and asymptotically lowered. The slope of the function (β) remained unaltered by inactivation. As a result, the stimulus visibility required for 50% performance (the average face-detection threshold) increased from 0.37 ± 0.02 at baseline to 0.45 ± 0.03 during the inactivation conditions.

We next tested whether the behavioral impairment following inactivation was specific to faces. Figure 3A shows the cumulative (summed across sessions) performance curves for face (left), body (middle), and shoe (right) detection. ML inactivation caused a shift of the psychometric function for face detection, but neither body nor shoe detection were significantly impaired. Effects were specific to the injection both in time and space. In recovery sessions when the effect of muscimol was expected to have subsided, behavioral performance returned to baseline levels across all target categories (Figure 3B; green), and fit parameters for performance in the recovery condition were not different from baseline for faces (Figure 2E; Figure 2F; green) or the other target categories (not shown). The transience of this effect demonstrates that muscimol was a causative agent. We also injected muscimol into cortex or white matter near ML (off-target injection, see Materials and methods). The off-target injection volumes barely overlapped with ML (9.6%; Figure 1D) or with any other face patch, and consequently, we observed only a weak and non-significant reduction in detection performance (Figure 2E; Figure 2F; Figure 3B; blue).

Figure 1

Download asset Open asset

Figure 2

Download asset Open asset

Figure 3

Download asset Open asset

We then compared the grand average performance deficits (across all stimulus visibilities and sessions) and threshold shifts (across all sessions) for all category/condition combinations (Figure 3C and D). We used an ANCOVA with each target category and experimental condition as an independent group (seven groups) and muscimol exposure session number as a covariate, with all fits constrained to have equal slopes on logit-transformed data to evaluate statistical significance. Only the face-inactivated condition showed significant performance deficits (F(6, 752)=17.89; p<0.0001) and threshold shifts (ANOVA; F(6, 65)=5.74; p<0.0001) that were pairwise significantly different from all of the other category/condition combinations including the body- and shoe-inactivated conditions (*p<0.05; Tukey's test). The mean face-detection performance deficit was not significantly correlated with the ML-injection overlap (Spearman’s Rho r_s = 0.42; p=0.1). An ANCOVA analysis with session number as independent groups and ML-injection overlap as a covariate did not reveal a significant effect of ML-injection overlap on the observed face-detection deficit (F(1,102) = 1.35; p=0.25). These data suggest that although there are differences in the extent of ML-injection overlap between sessions, as the central portion of ML was targeted by the injection, performance deficits were largely unaffected by these small differences in injection volume and overlap. Using an ANOVA (on logit-transformed data) that did not account for the effect of repeated muscimol exposure, we observed two additional pairwise comparisons that showed cross-category significance (light gray lines in Figure 3C; **p<0.01; Tukey’s test), but which did not reach significance for the appropriate within-category comparisons. Thus ML inactivation is largely category-selective for faces, and anatomically specific for ML compared with its immediate surroundings.

Although ML inactivation did not cause statistically significant performance deficits or threshold shifts for the other object categories, it is possible that the data might contain a non-specific component, as indicated by the non-zero values of performance deficits and threshold shifts for body parts and shoes (Figure 3C and D). To gain more statistical power for testing for a non-specific effect, we repeated the ANCOVA analysis that yielded the statistically significant performance deficit in Figure 3C, but with the ‘body’ and ‘shoe’ categories grouped into a single ‘non-face’ category. This procedure also failed to yield statistically significant differences between ‘non-face’ control and inactivated conditions. Similarly, grouping the ‘body’ and ‘shoe’ categories in the ANOVA analysis of threshold failed to yield a significant difference in threshold. If a weak non-specific effect truly existed, we could not attribute this to the motivation level of the animal post injection and MRI scan, as there were no significant differences between the total number of trials the animal initiated on control or inactivation days (paired t-test, p=0.47). Alternately, although 76% of the injection volume was contained within ML, it is possible that some muscimol diffused out of ML and into neighboring body patches (Popivanov et al., 2012) in some cases, causing a smaller, non-significant effect on that object category.

Our behavioral paradigm was designed to emphasize natural face detection, thus allowing free viewing. The paradigm therefore encouraged the use of behavioral strategies that made maximal use of face-processing resources in the unaffected hemisphere. Compatible with the idea that such strategies might have been learned and used, we found muscimol-induced performance deficits to decrease with repeated muscimol exposure. This accounted for some of the variability seen in Figure 2B, and could be quantified using the ANCOVA analysis described above. We observed a highly significant effect of session number on the performance deficit magnitude (F(1,752)=15.33; p<0.0001) with a positive slope of 0.01 ± 0.002, that is, the performance deficit caused by muscimol decreased by ~1% each session (relative to baseline performance level; Figure 3E). It is also possible that over the course of the inactivation experiments, animals gradually learned to use stimulus features represented outside of ML such as low-level features of faces, despite our efforts to prevent this through scaling and in-plane rotation of targets and varying the texture backgrounds. When we performed the ANCOVA with subject identity as a covariate, we did not observe a significant effect, demonstrating that the gradual reduction of the effect of muscimol and the variability in the data (Figure 2B) did not arise from pooling data from the two subjects.

To illustrate the putative perceptual impact of ML inactivation on face detection, we derived equivalent inactivated visibility values from the psychometric curves (Figure 4A; similar to Carrasco et al., 2004). At a high visibility of 0.85 (gray dashed line, marked '1' in Figure 4A), performance in the inactivated condition was ~75% correct, and the same performance level was achieved in the baseline condition at a visibility of 0.49 (red dashed line, marked '1' in Figure 4A). Therefore, when stimulus visibility was 0.85 in the inactivated condition, the subject was behaving as if the visibility was 0.49, and so forth (Figure 4B). As expected from the increased detection threshold, equivalent inactivated visibilities for faces were significantly lower than baseline visibilities (p<0.01; paired t-test). In Figure 4C, we plot example face stimuli for two visibility pairs (filled circles in Figure 4B). Thus, the induced shift in the psychometric curve is potentially reflected as a perceptually profound reduction of equivalent face visibility.

Figure 4

Download asset Open asset

The free-viewing nature of the task exploits natural visual search behavior to demonstrate the causal dependence of this behavior on face-patch activity. This design is similar to one used in many human visual search and object recognition studies, but, because reliable methods for eye-tracking in freely moving primates are not available, we did not track the eye position of subjects as they performed the task. Recent evidence suggests that object recognition performance in monkeys does not depend on response modality – performance measured using saccades with eye-tracking, or touch with no gaze tracking, was similar to human object recognition performance measured without eye-tracking (Rajalingham et al., 2015). Therefore, we do not expect the lack of eye-tracking to affect the main results of our study.

Lack of eye-tracking, however, introduces two main sources of variability into our data. First, we cannot clearly assess the spatial effects of unilateral inactivation. Because we inactivated ML unilaterally in our experiments, we attempted to address whether performance deficits were also lateralized by analyzing recognition performance when the target image was located in three vertically oriented bands – ipsilateral to injection site, contralateral, and in the center of the screen. This analysis reduced our overall statistical power and did not yield significant results. Previous experiments in head-fixed preparations have demonstrated that local inactivation of smaller cortical regions can cause face-processing deficits specific to the visual field they represent (e.g., Afraz et al., 2015). As face-patch ML shows a foveal bias (Janssens et al., 2014), and because the center of ML contains neurons with the strongest face selectivity (Aparicio et al., 2016), by targeting our injections to the center of ML, we may have interfered with face detection in a large foveal area that would force the subject to use alternate and slower face-detection strategies. Thus performance deficits may have been higher at target locations that correspond to retinotopic locations of the injection, and effect sizes reported here should be taken as lower bound estimates.

Second, the lack of eye-tracking limits our ability to quantify behavioral strategies that may have been used by the subject to solve the task. In particular, it adds variability to the psychometric curve and affects our estimate of the ‘chance level’ of the task because the subject may have looked away from the screen after initiating a trial. We designed our task to minimize this variability by: (1) requiring the animals to voluntarily initiate trials; (2) requiring subjects to direct their gaze to the center of the screen and perform a deliberate and accurate movement to initiate the trial; (3) requiring subjects to pay attention to the color of the central cue to determine target block identity; (4) requiring subjects to complete the task in a short time span; and (5) randomizing visibility levels within blocks and interleaving block types to prevent systematic biases. Through post-hoc analysis we determined that: (1) the animal performed similar numbers of trials on control and inactivation days suggesting no change in motivation level; (2) animals performed at a high rate on high-visibility trials on all days, suggesting no distraction at the time scale of trials. The experimental configuration ensured that the screen covered a large portion of the animal’s visual field, minimizing space available for distractions. Therefore, we believe that we have minimized the effects of extraneous sources on behavior. Additional sources of variability may remain, however, such as variations in eccentricity of the target stimulus as the subject freely views the display.

Direct cortical stimulation and suppression have been used successfully to alter face perception in humans and macaques (Allison et al., 1994; Parvizi et al., 2012; Chong et al., 2013; Jonas et al., 2014; Afraz et al., 2006; Roy et al., 2014; Afraz et al., 2015). We provide four critical advances over these past experiments: (1) We directly visualized and limited the spread of muscimol to the functionally defined coordinates of an fMRI-identified face area. Comparing on- and off-target injections, we could thus establish anatomical specificity of inactivation. (2) We used several interleaved object categories as behavioral targets. We could thus establish categorical specificity of ML inactivation. (3) We focused on face detection, the most fundamental and robust component of face processing (Sinha, 2002; Viola and Jones, 2004; Tsao and Livingstone, 2008; Gilad et al., 2009) and selected the target site of inactivation based on the known physiology of neurons (Ohayon et al., 2012). (4) We used a behavioral paradigm that was naturalistic, yet allowed for quantification of perceptual thresholds. Thus we could provide first causal evidence for the role of ML in real-life face detection. This is despite only unilaterally inactivating 1 out of 12 nodes (Tsao et al., 2006, 2008) and allowing free viewing. Receptive fields in posterior IT, the region in which ML is located, are spatially specific (Kobatake and Tanaka, 1994), and thus the two hemispheres cover different parts of the visual field (Rajimehr et al., 2014). Therefore, unilateral inactivation is expected to affect only part of the visual field (Afraz et al., 2015). That significant impairments occur during free viewing emphasizes the causal role of ML in everyday face detection. Effects were specific to faces, with little or no effects on one object category, bodies, that is represented in the direct vicinity of ML (Popivanov et al., 2012), and another one, shoes, a newly learned object category with exemplars, as in faces, exhibiting high within-class similarity. Our results thus extend our understanding of ML as a face-specific processing module containing a large number of cells tuned to facial features that are known to be useful for face detection in an important way: highlighting its causal role for real-world face-detection behavior.

All procedures conformed to the NIH Guide for Care and Use of Laboratory Animals of the National Institutes of Health. All animals were handled and all procedures and experiments conducted according to approved institutional animal care and use committee (IACUC) protocols at Weill Cornell Medicine (protocol number 2010–0029) and The Rockefeller University (protocol numbers 12585-H and 15849-H). All surgery was performed under isoflurane and a 70% nitrous oxide and 30% oxygen mixture. Every effort was made to minimize suffering.

1. 1. Afraz A
   2. Boyden ES
   3. DiCarlo JJ

   (2015) Optogenetic and pharmacological suppression of spatial clusters of face neurons reveal their causal role in face gender discrimination

   PNAS 112:6730–6735.

   https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1423328112

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
2. 1. Afraz SR
   2. Kiani R
   3. Esteky H

   (2006) Microstimulation of inferotemporal cortex influences face categorization

   Nature 442:692–695.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/nature04982

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
3. 1. Allison T
   2. Ginter H
   3. McCarthy G
   4. Nobre AC
   5. Puce A
   6. Luby M
   7. Spencer DD

   (1994)

   Face recognition in human extrastriate cortex

   Journal of Neurophysiology 71:821–825.

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
4. 1. Aparicio PL
   2. Issa EB
   3. DiCarlo JJ

   (2016) Neurophysiological organization of the middle face patch in macaque inferior temporal cortex

   The Journal of Neuroscience 36:12729–12745.

   https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0237-16.2016

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
5. 1. Barry TJ
   2. Griffith JW
   3. De Rossi S
   4. Hermans D

   (2014) Meet the fribbles: novel stimuli for use within behavioural research

   Frontiers in Psychology 5:103.

   https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00103

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
6. 1. Carrasco M
   2. Ling S
   3. Read S

   (2004) Attention alters appearance

   Nature Neuroscience 7:308–313.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1194

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
7. 1. Chong SC
   2. Jo S
   3. Park KM
   4. Joo EY
   5. Lee MJ
   6. Hong SC
   7. Hong SB

   (2013) Interaction between the electrical stimulation of a face-selective area and the perception of face stimuli

   NeuroImage 77:70–76.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.01.074

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
8. 1. Dias EC
   2. Segraves MA

   (1999)

   Muscimol-induced inactivation of monkey frontal eye field: effects on visually and memory-guided saccades

   Journal of Neurophysiology 81:2191–2214.

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
9. 1. Fischl B

   (2012) FreeSurfer

   NeuroImage 62:774–781.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.01.021

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
10. 1. Gilad S
    2. Meng M
    3. Sinha P

    (2009) Role of ordinal contrast relationships in face encoding

    PNAS 106:5353–5358.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0812396106

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
11. 1. Heiss JD
    2. Walbridge S
    3. Asthagiri AR
    4. Lonser RR

    (2010) Image-guided convection-enhanced delivery of muscimol to the primate brain

    Journal of Neurosurgery 112:790–795.

    https://doi.org/10.3171/2009.7.JNS09652

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
12. 1. Hikosaka O
    2. Wurtz RH

    (1985)

    Modification of saccadic eye movements by GABA-related substances. II. effects of muscimol in monkey substantia nigra pars reticulata

    Journal of Neurophysiology 53:292–308.

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
13. 1. Janssens T
    2. Zhu Q
    3. Popivanov ID
    4. Vanduffel W

    (2014) Probabilistic and single-subject retinotopic maps reveal the topographic organization of face patches in the macaque cortex

    Journal of Neuroscience 34:10156–10167.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2914-13.2013

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
14. 1. Jonas J
    2. Rossion B
    3. Krieg J
    4. Koessler L
    5. Colnat-Coulbois S
    6. Vespignani H
    7. Jacques C
    8. Vignal JP
    9. Brissart H
    10. Maillard L

    (2014) Intracerebral electrical stimulation of a face-selective area in the right inferior occipital cortex impairs individual face discrimination

    NeuroImage 99:487–497.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.06.017

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
15. 1. Kobatake E
    2. Tanaka K

    (1994)

    Neuronal selectivities to complex object features in the ventral visual pathway of the macaque cerebral cortex

    Journal of Neurophysiology 71:856–867.

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
16. 1. Leopold DA
    2. Rhodes G

    (2010) A comparative view of face perception

    Journal of Comparative Psychology 124:233–251.

    https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019460

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
17. 1. Lomber SG

    (1999) The advantages and limitations of permanent or reversible deactivation techniques in the assessment of neural function

    Journal of Neuroscience Methods 86:109–117.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-0270(98)00160-5

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
18. 1. Noudoost B
    2. Moore T

    (2011) A reliable microinjectrode system for use in behaving monkeys

    Journal of Neuroscience Methods 194:218–223.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2010.10.009

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
19. 1. Ohayon S
    2. Freiwald WA
    3. Tsao DY

    (2012) What makes a cell face selective? the importance of contrast

    Neuron 74:567–581.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2012.03.024

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
20. 1. Ohayon S
    2. Tsao DY

    (2012) MR-guided stereotactic navigation

    Journal of Neuroscience Methods 204:389–397.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2011.11.031

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
21. 1. Parvizi J
    2. Jacques C
    3. Foster BL
    4. Witthoft N
    5. Withoft N
    6. Rangarajan V
    7. Weiner KS
    8. Grill-Spector K

    (2012) Electrical stimulation of human fusiform face-selective regions distorts face perception

    Journal of Neuroscience 32:14915–14920.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2609-12.2012

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
22. 1. Popivanov ID
    2. Jastorff J
    3. Vanduffel W
    4. Vogels R

    (2012) Stimulus representations in body-selective regions of the macaque cortex assessed with event-related fMRI

    NeuroImage 63:723–741.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.07.013

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
23. 1. Portilla J
    2. Simoncelli EP

    (2000) A parametric texture model based on joint statistics of complex wavelet coefficients

    International Journal of Computer Vision 40:49–70.

    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026553619983

    • Google Scholar
24. 1. Rajalingham R
    2. Schmidt K
    3. DiCarlo JJ

    (2015) Comparison of object recognition behavior in human and monkey

    Journal of Neuroscience 35:12127–12136.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0573-15.2015

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
25. 1. Rajimehr R
    2. Bilenko NY
    3. Vanduffel W
    4. Tootell RB

    (2014) Retinotopy versus face selectivity in macaque visual cortex

    Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 26:2691–2700.

    https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00672

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
26. 1. Roy A
    2. Shepherd SV
    3. Platt ML

    (2014) Reversible inactivation of pSTS suppresses social gaze following in the macaque (Macaca mulatta)

    Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience 9:209–217.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nss123

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
27. 1. Sinha P

    (2002)

    Proceedings of the Annual Workshop on Biologically Motivated Computer Vision

    249–262, Qualitative representations for recognition, Proceedings of the Annual Workshop on Biologically Motivated Computer Vision.

    • Google Scholar
28. 1. Sommer MA
    2. Wurtz RH

    (2004) What the brain stem tells the frontal cortex. II. role of the SC-MD-FEF pathway in corollary discharge

    Journal of Neurophysiology 91:1403–1423.

    https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00740.2003

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
29. 1. Tsao DY
    2. Freiwald WA
    3. Tootell RB
    4. Livingstone MS

    (2006) A cortical region consisting entirely of face-selective cells

    Science 311:670–674.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1119983

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
30. 1. Tsao DY
    2. Livingstone MS

    (2008) Mechanisms of face perception

    Annual Review of Neuroscience 31:411–437.

    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.neuro.30.051606.094238

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
31. 1. Tsao DY
    2. Moeller S
    3. Freiwald WA

    (2008) Comparing face patch systems in macaques and humans

    PNAS 105:19514–19519.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0809662105

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
32. 1. Viola P
    2. Jones MJ

    (2004) Robust Real-Time face detection

    International Journal of Computer Vision 57:137–154.

    https://doi.org/10.1023/B:VISI.0000013087.49260.fb

    • Google Scholar
33. 1. Wichmann FA
    2. Hill NJ

    (2001) The psychometric function: I. fitting, sampling, and goodness of fit

    Perception & Psychophysics 63:1293–1313.

    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194544

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
34. 1. Wilke M
    2. Kagan I
    3. Andersen RA

    (2012) Functional imaging reveals rapid reorganization of cortical activity after parietal inactivation in monkeys

    PNAS 109:8274–8279.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1204789109

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
35. 1. Willenbockel V
    2. Sadr J
    3. Fiset D
    4. Horne GO
    5. Gosselin F
    6. Tanaka JW

    (2010) Controlling low-level image properties: the SHINE toolbox

    Behavior Research Methods 42:671–684.

    https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.42.3.671

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar

Author details

1. Srivatsun Sadagopan

   Departments of Otolaryngology and Bioengineering, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, United States

   Contribution

   SS, Conceptualization, Data curation, Software, Formal analysis, Investigation, Visualization, Methodology, Writing—original draft, Writing—review and editing, Designed the experiments, performed functional imaging and inactivation experiments, analyzed data

   Competing interests

   The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-1116-8728

2. Wilbert Zarco

   Laboratory of Neural Systems, The Rockefeller University, New York, United States

   Contribution

   WZ, Investigation, Methodology, Writing—original draft, Collected behavioral data, performed functional imaging, performed inactivation experiments, assisted with data analysis

   Competing interests

   The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-3599-0476

3. Winrich A Freiwald

   Laboratory of Neural Systems, The Rockefeller University, New York, United States

   Contribution

   WAF, Conceptualization, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Project administration, Writing—review and editing, Designed the experiments, performed inactivation experiments, provided inputs for data analysis, wrote and revised the manuscript

   For correspondence

   wfreiwald@mail.rockefeller.edu

   Competing interests

   The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-8456-5030

• 2,382

  views

• 370

  downloads

• 45

  citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.