. 2017 Mar 27;38(6):3113–3125. doi: 10.1002/hbm.23578

Table 4.

Statistical results of the analysis of response and decoding accuracy of complete and eyes‐obscured expressions in each ROI

	%Signal change		Decoding accuracy
	Complete > Obscured		Complete > Chance		Obscured > Chance		Complete > Obscured
	t ₍₁₇₎	P	t ₍₁₇₎	P	t ₍₁₇₎	P	t ₍₁₇₎	P
FFA	2.215	0.020*	2.595	0.009*	0.880	0.196	2.647	0.008*
OFA	4.643	<0.001*	2.401	0.014*	−1.158	0.869	2.800	0.006*
pSTS1	2.236	0.019*	2.954	0.004*	1.567	0.068	2.277	0.018*
pSTS2	2.188	0.021*	3.453	0.002*	1.668	0.057	2.114	0.025*
V5f	0.403	0.346	3.739	<0.001*	1.719	0.052	2.113	0.025*

One‐sample and paired t‐test of percent signal change and decoding accuracies for complete and eye‐region obscured expressions in each ROI; one‐tailed. *Significant P values (FDR corrected for number of ROIs). Activations for the obscured expressions were significantly lower than those for the complete expressions in all ROIs except V5f, and the classification accuracies for the obscured expressions were significantly reduced in all ROIs.