The name is absent

29

side Ofstimulation (ipsilateral vs. contralateral) with percentage MR signal change as the
dependent variable. There was a significant preference for contralateral versus
ipsilateral stimulation ( p=0.006) and for hand versus foot stimulation ( p = 0.04) but no
interaction between them ( p = 0.11). For comparison with MST, we also calculated the
average response in S2+ (Fig. 2β). The dynamics of the evoked hemodynamic response
appeared similar to MST, with a peak 4 s after stimulus onset. As in MST, there was a
significant preference for contralateral compared with ipsilateral stimulation ( p = IO'¹⁰)
and hand compared with foot stimulation ( p = 0.02). In contrast to the strong tactile
response observed in MST and S2+, the average time series from all voxels in MT
showed only a weak response to tactile stimulation (Fig.2C).

Figure 2. Time course of average evoked BOLD response (n = 8 subjects) to Vibrotactile stimulation
in MST (A), S2+ (S), and MT (C)- Plots show evoked response to contralateral hand (CH), ipsilateral
hand (IH), contralateral foot (CF), and ipsilateral foot (IF) stimulation. Colored bars illustrate 2 s
stimulus duration. Black lines show mean signal Change for 16 s after stimulus onset, and gray lines
show ±1SEM.

Anotherwell studied visual region is the LOC, defined as occipitotemporal cortex
that prefers real visual images to scrambled visual images (Malach, et al. 1995). In a
study in which subjects manipulated real objects, tactile responses were reported in a
subregion of the LOC, labeled LOtv (tactile-visual) (Amedi, et al. 2001). There is overlap

<<   37   38   39   40   41   42   43   >>

More intriguing information