Table 1.
fMRI studies of person knowledge included in the random effects ALE analysis.
| References | N (Males) | Mean age | Face stimuli | ATL activations? | Task | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Personally familiar | Trained knowledge | Famous | |||||
| Arsalidou et al., 2010 | 10 (4) | 35.4 | x | No | Familiar vs. Celebrity vs. Stranger faces | ||
| Bai et al., 2011 | 21 (11) | 33 | x | Bilateral ATL | Famous vs. Unfamiliar faces | ||
| Barense et al., 2011 | 18 (6) | 27.3 | x | Bilateral ATL | Odd-one-out task: Familiar vs. Unfamiliar faces | ||
| Bernard et al., 2004 | 12 (3) | 58.7 | x | No | Famous vs. Non-famous faces | ||
| Brambati et al., 2010 | 12 (4) | 23 | x | Right ATL | Semantic judgment task: Famous vs. Scrambled famous faces | ||
| Cloutier et al., 2011 | 19 (0) | 18.9 | x | Right ATL | Trained familiar faces task | ||
| Donix et al., 2010 | 12 (6) | 30.4 | x | No | Familiar vs. Unfamiliar faces | ||
| Eger et al., 2005 | 15 (4) | 21.8 | x | Bilateral ATL | Repetition suppression task: Familiar vs. Unfamiliar faces | ||
| Elfgren et al., 2006 | 15 (7) | 23.3 | x | Bilateral ATL | Famous vs. Unfamiliar faces | ||
| Gesierich et al., 2011 | 21 (7) | 28.4 | x | Bilateral ATL | Famous vs. Scrambled faces | ||
| Left ATL | Famous vs. Non-famous Faces | ||||||
| Gobbini et al., 2004 | 10 (5) | 26.8 | x | x | Right ATL | Familiar vs. Famous vs. Unfamiliar faces | |
| Henson et al., 2003 | 18 (10) | 28 (median) | x | Left ATL | Famous vs. Non-famous faces | ||
| Ishai et al., 2002 | 9 (5) | 27 | x | No | Famous vs. scrambled faces | ||
| Leveroni et al., 2000 | 11 (5) | 32 | x | Right ATL (Famous) | Newly-learned vs. Famous vs. Unfamiliar faces | ||
| Nielson et al., 2010 | 17 (10) | 28.8 | x | Left ATL | Famous vs. Non-famous faces | ||
| Pourtois et al., 2005 | 13 (8) | 26 | x | RightATL | Repetition suppression: Famous vs. Non-famous faces | ||
| Ramon et al., 2010 | 13 (5) | 23 | x | Right ATL | Semi-familiar vs. Computer generated unfamiliar faces | ||
| Ross and Olson, 2011 | 11 (4) | 23 | x | x | Bilateral ATL (famous); Left ATL (trained) | Non-famous faces and places paired with semantic information | |
| Rothstein et al., 2005 | 14 (7) | 28 | x | Bilateral ATL | Famous vs. Morphed famous faces | ||
| Sugiura et al., 2005 | 28 (16) | 19–31 | x | Left ATL (personally known) | Own vs. Familiar vs. Unfamiliar faces | ||
| Sugiura et al., 2011 | 34 (26) | 18–26 | x | x | Bilateral ATL (personally known) | Familiar vs. Unfamiliar vs. Famous faces | |
| Trinkler et al., 2009 | 14 (8) | 20–23 | x | x | Bilateral ATL (personally known); Right ATL (famous) | Famous vs. Familiar vs. Unfamiliar faces | |
| Tsukiura et al., 2006 | 11 (7) | 21.5 | x | Right ATL | Trained familiar with semantic information vs. Trained familiar without semantic information | ||
| Tsukiura et al., 2003 | 11 (11) | 22.3 | x | Bilateral ATL | Trained familiar faces vs. Mosaic faces vs. Fixation | ||
| Tsukiura et al., 2008 | 10 (6) | 22.1 | x | Right ATL | Trained familiar vs. Unfamiliar faces | ||
| Turk et al., 2005 | 13 (6) | 24 | x | No | Semantic task during famous face viewing | ||
| N | 7 | 5 | 18 | 21/26 | |||
Data from the “trained knowledge” column includes studies in which study participants were trained to associate different types of semantic knowledge (e.g., a profession) with a novel face. These data were not included in an ALE analysis because the number of studies was small and the training paradigms variable. The last two columns list whether ATL activations were reported and the experimental task/comparisons in each study. We note that Turk and colleagues (2005) reported that technical limitations kept them from seeing activations in the ATL.