2002) is crucial in order to reach a proper interpretation of the effects in these young age groups. While SCN is a better baseline for speech in terms of sensitivity, it is not flawless. A sellekchem perfect baseline would be equated in all the acoustical features of speech, without sharing the linguistic features of speech. As some linguistic properties are defined acoustically (e.g., phonetic and prosodic aspects),
a perfect baseline is impossible to achieve, leaving us with various compromises. Among the two alternative baselines compared here, SCN successfully removes primary auditory responses, but retains speech responses in frontal and temporal regions. Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical When we use reversed speech as an auditory baseline in a continuous sampling paradigm, we risk “throwing out the baby with the bath water,” that is, removing too much of the signal in speech kinase inhibitor Crenolanib processing regions. An alternative approach to both of these localizers would target specific systems Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical or processing pathways, via a more focused manipulation of syntax (cf. Fedorenko et al. 2010), morphology (Bick et al. 2008), and so forth. This approach could lead to a more refined identification of relevant ROIs. Importantly, such localizers should go through similar optimization procedures to allow maximum sensitivity, specificity, efficiency, and independence (see Fox et al. (2009) Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical for a similar approach in a different domain).
All in all, developing a set of standard, optimized, off-the-shelf localizers for specific language Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical functions will allow better comparability across language studies and provide a systematic approach for single subject analyses in fMRI. Acknowledgments This work was supported by the Israel Science Foundation (grant no. 513/11) and by a Marie Curie International Reintegration Grant (DNLP 231029) from the European Commission. We are grateful to Matt Davis for sharing his code and advice in producing SCN stimuli. We thank Talma Hendler, Dafna Ben-Bashat, Oren Levin, and Orly Elchadif from the Wohl Center in Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center. We also thank Eitan Globerson, Vered Kronfeld, Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical and Tali Halag from the Gonda Brain Research Center in Bar
Ilan. Conflict of Interest None declared. Supporting Information Additional Supporting Information Carfilzomib may be found in the online version of this article: Figure S1. Temporal characteristics of a STS response to speech and reversed speech. (A) Group-averaged time course of BOLD activation for Speech (red) and Reversed (green) in left and right aSTS. ROIs were defined by Speech versus SCN (P < 0.001, uncorrected), (B) Half-maximum decay time of the BOLD response for speech and reversed speech. Bars denote group average, error bars represent 1 standard error of the mean. In similar fashion to pSTS results (Fig. 5), no significant difference was found between speech and reversed speech decay times, (C) Half-maximum decay times are plotted for speech against reversed speech in each participant.