Table 2.

A summary of the included studies per Activation Likelihood Estimate (ALE) analyses.

Contrast	Authors	Task	Number of subjects	Number of Foci	Statistical threshold	Smoothing FWHM (mm)
Task > Control	Banko et al., 2011	Face recognition	16	4	FDR 0.05	8
	Bode et al., 2012	Object recognition	14	1	FWE 0.001	8
	Ivanoff et al., 2008	RDM motion discrimination	22	49	FDR 0.05	4
	Kahnt et al., 2011	Gabor patch orientation discrimination	20	7	Unc. 0.0001	6
	Lewis et al., 2000	Auditory motion discrimination	10	9	Unc. 1 × 10−5	4
		RDM discrimination	9	10	Unc. 1 × 10−11	4
	Lundblad et al., 2011	Tactile motion discrimination	16	24	FWE 0.05	8
	Singh and Fawcett, 2008*	RDM discrimination	7	30	Cluster 0.01	5
	Snyder et al., 2011	RDM discrimination	10	15	FDR 0.05	8
		Object recognition	10	11	FDR 0.05	8
Hard > Easy	Banko et al., 2011	Face recognition	16	10	FDR 0.05	8
	Bode et al., 2012	Object recognition	14	1	FWE 0.001	8
	Fleming et al., 2010*	Face vs house discrimination	14	2	Cluster 0.001	8
	Heekeren et al., 2004	Face vs house discrimination	12	14	Unc. 0.0001	8
	Heekeren et al., 2006*	RDM discrimination	8	5	Unc. 0.005	8
	Ho et al., 2009	RDM discrimination	11	11	FDR 0.05	4
	Kayser et al., 2010a	RDM discrimination	5	22	Unc. 0.0001	5
		Color discrimination	5	18	Unc. 0.0001	5
	Kayser et al., 2010b	RDM discrimination	6	25	Unc. 0.0001	6
	Noppeney et al., 2010	Object recognition	19	9	Cluster 0.05	8
	Philiastides and Sajda, 2007*	Face vs. cars discrimination	12	5	Cluster 0.05	8
	Sunaert et al., 2000	RDM discrimination	8	5	Cluster 0.05	10
	Tosoni et al., 2008*	Face vs. house discrimination	12	18	Unc. 0.05	n.s.

Several studies conducted multiple experiments and each experiment is reported as a separate contrast. FWHM, full width at half maximum; RDM, random dot motion; Unc, uncorrected; FWE, familywise error rate; FDR, false discovery rate; n.s., not stated.

^*Coordinates acquired via personal communication.