Given this duplication of object representations along the ventral and lateral surface, the different response properties discovered for lateral and ventral category-selective

regions in general may also apply to Big-PHC, Small-OTS, and Small-LO. Object-responsive Obeticholic Acid molecular weight cortex anterior to early visual areas was originally thought to be nonretinotopic; however, there are now many well-documented retinotopic maps extending along dorsal and ventral streams (e.g., for reviews, see Wandell et al., 2007 and Silver and Kastner, 2009). Comparing object responses with retinotopic organization in this cortex may prove to be valuable for understanding the consistent spatial arrangement of category-selective regions (e.g., Levy et al., 2001, Malach et al., 2002, Hasson et al., 2002, Hasson et al., 2003 and Sayres and Grill-Spector, 2008), as well as the big/small object regions. Here we discuss how the big and small object responses relate to the retinotopic biases in occipitotemporal cortex. TGF-beta inhibitor The medial ventral surface has peripheral field biases while the lateral temporal surface has central

field biases, which extend directly from early visual areas V1-V4 (Levy et al., 2001, Malach et al., 2002 and Hasson et al., 2003; but see Brewer et al., 2005 and Arcaro et al., 2009, which suggest that there are separate foveal representations in these regions). Face- and scene-selective areas are found in cortex with foveal and peripheral biases, respectively (e.g., Levy et al., 2001 and Hasson et al., 2002). Similarly, given the positions of the big/small object regions relative to the scene/face regions, there is a striking convergence between big and small object information and the eccentricity biases of high-level object areas. For example, Figure 6 illustrates that Big-PHC region is near to peripheral early visual cortex, while the Small-OTS and Small-LO preferences are closer

to foveal early visual cortex, and both organizations are mirrored along the lateral surface. This convergence raises the possibility that big/small preferences may derive the in part from eccentricity biases. In their eccentricity-bias proposal of the organization of object representation, Malach and colleagues proposed a processing-based organization of cortex, positing that areas with foveal or peripheral biases carry out fine-detailed or integrative processing, respectively. On this account, any object will be represented along this cortex based on its processing-resolution needs (e.g., Malach et al., 2002). This account has met with some criticisms, however, as the concept of processing-resolution was not clearly operationalized (see also Tyler et al., 2005). For example, it is not obvious that faces require fine-detail processing and not integrative processing.