Perceptions

of one's own thread killer. FYI ponderable.

Previous functional imaging studies have shown that facilitated processing of a visual object on repeated, relative to initial, presentation (i.e., repetition priming) is associated with reductions in neural activity in multiple regions, including fusiform/lateral occipital cortex. Moreover, activity reductions have been found, at diminished levels, when a different exemplar of an object is presented on repetition. In one previous study, the magnitude of diminished priming across exemplars was greater in the right relative to the left fusiform, suggesting greater exemplar specificity in the right. Another previous study, however, observed fusiform lateralization modulated by object viewpoint, but not object exemplar. The present fMRI study sought to determine whether the result of differential fusiform responses for perceptually different exemplars could be replicated. Furthermore, the role of the left fusiform cortex in object recognition was investigated via the inclusion of a lexical/semantic manipulation. Right fusiform cortex showed a significantly greater effect of exemplar change than left fusiform, replicating the previous result of exemplar-specific fusiform lateralization. Right fusiform and lateral occipital cortex were not differentially engaged by the lexical/semantic manipulation, suggesting that their role in visual object recognition is predominantly in the visual discrimination of specific objects. Activation in left fusiform cortex, but not left lateral occipital cortex, was modulated by both exemplar change and lexical/semantic manipulation, with further analysis suggesting a posterior-to-anterior progression between regions involved in processing visuoperceptual and lexical/semantic information about objects. The results are consistent with the view that the right fusiform plays a greater role in processing specific visual form information about objects, whereas the left fusiform is also involved in lexical/semantic processing.

c/o : http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S105381190300096X

-m.

Interesting to me, anyway. 😛

Originally posted by mikelom
of one's own thread killer. FYI ponderable.

Previous functional imaging studies have shown that facilitated processing of a visual object on repeated, relative to initial, presentation (i.e., repetition priming) is associated with reductions in neural activity in multiple regions, including fusiform/lateral occipital cortex. Moreover, activity reducti ...[text shortened]... www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S105381190300096X

-m.

Interesting to me, anyway. 😛

Reveal Hidden Content

Your honour, I represent the plaintiff in this case.
The plaintiff being the retina.

We shall show the jury that the defendants in this case
are guilty of fraud. The defendants being the occipital lobe
and the visual cortex.

We will show that these two conspired together in fusiform
to commit fraud upon the retina knowing that the amount of
light hitting the back of the retina is reduced to 50% after the
age of forty years. the retina thought that he saw images
which were actually totally different because the occipital
lobe and the visual cortex compounded the situation and the
plaintiff saw something completely different from that which
was actually taking place.

It was sleight of hand your honour and we have MRI scans to show
that the integrity of the occipital lobe and the visual cortex were
impaired to such a degree as to be not fit for purpose.

We will ask for the highest penalty under law and medicine to be
applied in this case and that the defendants be made liable for the
costs of corrective reading lenses.

Originally posted by johnnylongwoody
Your honour, I represent the plaintiff in this case.
The plaintiff being the retina.

We shall show the jury that the defendants in this case
are guilty of fraud. The defendants being the occipital lobe
and the visual cortex.

We will show that these two conspired together in fusiform
to commit fraud upon the retina knowing that the amou ...[text shortened]... in this case and that the defendants be made liable for the
costs of corrective reading lenses.

Originally posted by Great Big Stees
His honour: "Just one moment there, I forgot to turn on my hearing aid. Could you repeat that please?"

Originally posted by johnnylongwoody
Bailiff!!!! Explain to the judge that I would like him to prepare an arrest warrant
for the Auditory canal, the hammer, the anvil and the eardrum.

They should also be in the dock along with the occipital lobe and the visual cortex.
They should be brought up in my opinion on charges of perverting the course of
justice by preventing his honour ...[text shortened]... argument by Counsel for the Defence.

I shall seek a continuance until said defendants appear.

Originally posted by mikelom
It was only my soul's imagination Sir, and that is not a part of my cortex; or is it?

-m. 😉

Originally posted by Great Big Stees
His honour: "What on earth has a woman's hygiene product got to do with these proceedings?"
Bailiff: "Sir, he said CORTEX".
His honour: "Oh, sorry. Damn hearing aid, continue."

Originally posted by mikelom
Bailiff: 'sir, DUREX has nothing to do with a woman's hygienic product, Shirley?'

Originally posted by johnnylongwoody
Your honour, I represent the plaintiff in this case.
The plaintiff being the retina.

We shall show the jury that the defendants in this case
are guilty of fraud. The defendants being the occipital lobe
and the visual cortex.

We will show that these two conspired together in fusiform
to commit fraud upon the retina knowing that the amou ...[text shortened]... in this case and that the defendants be made liable for the
costs of corrective reading lenses.