Functionally and structurally distinct fusiform face area(s) in over 1000 participants

• Published in: NeuroImage (Orlando, Fla.) Fla.), 2023-01, Vol.265, p.119765-119765, Article 119765
• Main Authors: Chen, Xiayu, Liu, Xingyu, Parker, Benjamin J., Zhen, Zonglei, Weiner, Kevin S.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Brain; Brain Mapping; Cognitive ability; Connectome; Cortical thickness; Face; Face selectivity; Functional connectivity; Fusiform face area; Humans; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Memory; Multimodal MRI; Myelination; Neural networks; Pattern Recognition, Visual; Photic Stimulation; Structure-function relationships; Young adults
• ISSN: 1053-8119; 1095-9572; 1095-9572
• DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2022.119765

•We manually defined individual fusiform face-selective regions in 1053 participants (2106 hemispheres) from the Human Connectome Project.•95.44% of hemispheres have two fusiform face-selective regions that differ in face selectivity, functional connectivity, cortical thickness, and myelination.•Patterns of face selectivity and functional connectivity for each fusiform face-selective region are more similar in monozygotic than dizygotic twins and more so than cortical thickness and myelination. The fusiform face area (FFA) is a widely studied region causally involved in face perception. Even though cognitive neuroscientists have been studying the FFA for over two decades, answers to foundational questions regarding the function, architecture, and connectivity of the FFA from a large (N>1000) group of participants are still lacking. To fill this gap in knowledge, we quantified these multimodal features of fusiform face-selective regions in 1053 participants in the Human Connectome Project. After manually defining over 4,000 fusiform face-selective regions, we report five main findings. First, 68.76% of hemispheres have two cortically separate regions (pFus-faces/FFA-1 and mFus-faces/FFA-2). Second, in 26.69% of hemispheres, pFus-faces/FFA-1 and mFus-faces/FFA-2 are spatially contiguous, yet are distinct based on functional, architectural, and connectivity metrics. Third, pFus-faces/FFA-1 is more face-selective than mFus-faces/FFA-2, and the two regions have distinct functional connectivity fingerprints. Fourth, pFus-faces/FFA-1 is cortically thinner and more heavily myelinated than mFus-faces/FFA-2. Fifth, face-selective patterns and functional connectivity fingerprints of each region are more similar in monozygotic than dizygotic twins and more so than architectural gradients. As we share our areal definitions with the field, future studies can explore how structural and functional features of these regions will inform theories regarding how visual categories are represented in the brain.