Table 2.

Exp. 1: Biological motion perceptual thresholds of patients and controls

Patient	Threshold	Versus healthy age-matched controls (control group 1)			Versus brain-damaged controls (control group 3)
					All (n = 54)		LH damage only (n = 43)		RH damage only (n = 11)		With “critical” pSTS lesion (n = 9)		With “critical” vPMC lesion (n = 10)
		Mean threshold ± SD	t	P	t	P	t	P	t	P	t	P	t	P
EL	18.38	19.15 ± 8.74	−0.086	0.933	1.47	0.15*	1.5	0.14*	1.29	0.22*	4.187	0.002*	3.66	0.003*
GB	18.73	19.15 ± 8.74	−0.047	0.963	1.54	0.13*	1.57	0.12*	1.35	0.20*	4.319	0.002*	3.78	0.003*
SH	11.33	19.15 ± 8.74	−0.866	0.401	0.12	0.90	0.09	0.93	0.22	0.83	1.528	0.082*	1.27	0.117*
CR	13.97	28.66 ± 7.91	−1.8	0.09	0.63	0.53	0.62	0.53	0.62	0.54	2.52	0.018*	2.17	0.03*
SM	12.25	25.06 ± 7.54	−1.64	0.12	0.3	0.77	0.27	0.78	0.36	0.72	1.875	0.049*	1.58	0.07*
EC	9.57	20.08 ± 7.87	−1.29	0.22	−0.21	0.83	−0.26	0.79	−0.047	0.96	0.864	0.206*	0.676	0.26*

Thresholds indicate the number of noise points masking the stimuli while performance is at 82% accuracy (Methods). Statistical values (t, P) represent single-case vs. control group comparisons (40). Ventral visual patients’ perceptual thresholds for biological motion were not significantly different from those of three control groups: healthy age-matched (group 1), brain-damaged (group 3), and younger controls (group 2; see Results). Importantly, the group of ventral patients performed significantly better than the group of patients with lesions to pSTS or vPMC (Results).

^*At the upper end of the controls’ distribution (i.e., performing better than the average).