Iance, but we may have mischaracterized it as shared variance due to the fact of stimulus correlations. Second, the outcomes of Nasr and Tootell’s study, which relied on filtered and artificial stimuli, just may not generalize to clarify responses to natural images. This can be a recognized pitfall of working with artificial or manipulated stimuli (Talebi and Baker,). In any case, the information in the Nasr and Tootell study provide no data in regards to the strength with the relationship between Fourier power and BOLD responses in sceneselective regions relative towards the effects of other attributes. Thus, their study can’t resolve the query of which model is most effective, nor the question of how Fourier power attributes are connected to other capabilities. Park et al. argued that PPA and RSC represent scene size. Their metric for scene size was based on human judgments, and so is closely related for the subjective distance model that we tested here. They measured BOLD responses to a sizable and very carefully chosen set of photographs of organic scenes, and found that responses in PPA and RSC increased parametrically with scene size. However, we found a robust connection involving scene size and Fourier DM1 energy inside the photos used in the Park et al. study PubMed ID:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25807422 (Figure A, Figure S). To try to avoid justsuch confounds, Park and colleagues developed a handle stimulus set in which highfrequency Fourier energy was roughly equalized across distinctive scene sizes. We did not test this manage stimulus set straight, but since the differences in Fourier power that we observed have been particular to distinct orientations, it can be unlikely that their control removed all Fourier power variations between scenes. This suggests that variations in particular Fourier energy channels involving distinct scene sizes could possibly account for the results reported in the Park study, just as both the Fourier power and subjective distance models give equivalent descriptions of sceneselective regions in our data. Lastly, Park and colleagues didn’t assess regardless of whether the distinct semantic categories of objects in each of their scenes may have affected BOLD responses. Without having this comparison, it truly is unclear whether the presence of different object categories in their scenes might have also impacted their results. For all these factors, the outcomes reported by Park and colleagues can not present a basis for selecting between the three models of sceneselective areas that we think about. Kravitz et al. argue that PPA and OPA represent scene expanse (defined 
because the difference in between open and Chrysatropic acid biological activity closed scenes) and relative distance (defined because the difference between near and far scenes). They find that voxel patterns in PPA and OPA distinguish both open scenes from closed scenes and near scenes from far scenes greater than the same voxels distinguish organic from manmade scenes. Even so, variation in Fourier power across their experimental conditions complicates the interpretation of their outcomes. They acknowledge that the open and closed scenes in their stimulus set have visibly various Fourier power spectra. When we processed their stimuli with our Fourier power model, we identified substantial differences between their open and closed scenes in several Fourier energy channels (Figure SA). This suggests that the unique patterns of responses they observed to 
open and closed scenes may very well be equally nicely explained by variations in Fourier power involving open and closed scenes. Kravitz et al. do not report any variations in between the Fourier spectra.Iance, but we may have mischaracterized it as shared variance because of stimulus correlations. Second, the results of Nasr and Tootell’s study, which relied on filtered and artificial stimuli, merely might not generalize to explain responses to organic pictures. This is a identified pitfall of employing artificial or manipulated stimuli (Talebi and Baker,). In any case, the data in the Nasr and Tootell study give no details regarding the strength of your partnership among Fourier power and BOLD responses in sceneselective areas relative towards the effects of other features. Therefore, their study can’t resolve the question of which model is ideal, nor the question of how Fourier power capabilities are associated to other characteristics. Park et al. argued that PPA and RSC represent scene size. Their metric for scene size was based on human judgments, and so is closely connected for the subjective distance model that we tested here. They measured BOLD responses to a sizable and carefully chosen set of photographs of natural scenes, and discovered that responses in PPA and RSC elevated parametrically with scene size. Even so, we found a strong relationship among scene size and Fourier power inside the images utilised inside the Park et al. study PubMed ID:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25807422 (Figure A, Figure S). To attempt to steer clear of justsuch confounds, Park and colleagues created a manage stimulus set in which highfrequency Fourier energy was about equalized across unique scene sizes. We didn’t test this manage stimulus set directly, but because the differences in Fourier power that we observed had been distinct to unique orientations, it is actually unlikely that their handle removed all Fourier power differences in between scenes. This suggests that differences in distinct Fourier energy channels between unique scene sizes could account for the results reported in the Park study, just as each the Fourier energy and subjective distance models give equivalent descriptions of sceneselective regions in our data. Ultimately, Park and colleagues did not assess whether or not the precise semantic categories of objects in every of their scenes could have impacted BOLD responses. With no this comparison, it is unclear no matter whether the presence of distinctive object categories in their scenes might have also affected their results. For all these factors, the outcomes reported by Park and colleagues can’t offer a basis for choosing in between the 3 models of sceneselective regions that we contemplate. Kravitz et al. argue that PPA and OPA represent scene expanse (defined as the difference amongst open and closed scenes) and relative distance (defined because the difference in between close to and far scenes). They find that voxel patterns in PPA and OPA distinguish both open scenes from closed scenes and close to scenes from far scenes far better than the exact same voxels distinguish natural from manmade scenes. However, variation in Fourier power across their experimental conditions complicates the interpretation of their final results. They acknowledge that the open and closed scenes in their stimulus set have visibly unique Fourier energy spectra. When we processed their stimuli with our Fourier energy model, we located considerable differences between their open and closed scenes in a number of Fourier power channels (Figure SA). This suggests that the diverse patterns of responses they observed to open and closed scenes may be equally effectively explained by differences in Fourier energy between open and closed scenes. Kravitz et al. don’t report any variations between the Fourier spectra.
