Probing the content of semantic representations in body-selective regions

preprint OA: closed
📄 Open PDF Full text JSON View at publisher
AI-generated deep summary by claude@2026-07, 2026-07-04 · read from full text

The study investigated what semantic information drives responses in the extrastriate body area (EBA), using caption-based encoding models that relate object co-occurrence patterns in natural scene descriptions to EBA activity. The analysis identified specific object category pairs linked to EBA responses, leading to the hypothesis that EBA represents the speed of human body motion implied by scenes, which was supported by behavioral ratings and correlational analyses showing strong alignment between EBA activity and implied motion. The same implied-motion representation extended into the fusiform body area (FBA), and variance partitioning indicated that although other body-related factors (e.g., number of people, body size) contribute, implied motion uniquely explained the largest portion of EBA and FBA responses. This paper does not explicitly discuss endometriosis or adenomyosis; it was included in the corpus via a keyword match in the upstream search index.

Read from the paper's body, not the abstract. Not a substitute for reading the paper. No clinical advice. How this works

Abstract

The extrastriate body area (EBA) has been known to selectively respond to human body parts, but recent work suggests it may encode richer scene semantics. However, it remains unclear what aspects of natural scenes constitute the semantic representation in the EBA. Here we address this question by analyzing the relationship between object co-occurrence in natural scene captions and EBA responses predicted by caption-based encoding models. This revealed object category pairs associated with EBA activity, leading to the hypothesis that EBA encodes the speed of human body motion implied in scenes. A subsequent behavioral experiment and correlation analyses confirmed this, showing strong correlations between EBA responses and implied motion ratings. In addition, the representation of implied body motion extends into the fusiform body area (FBA). Variance partitioning further showed that while body-related features such as the number of people and body size also contributed, implied motion uniquely explained the largest portion of EBA and FBA responses. Overall, semantic representations in body-selective regions are jointly shaped by multiple body-related features, with implied motion as the primary contributor. Our co-occurrence-based approach, combined with brain-to-model mapping methods, offers a novel, interpretable framework for understanding high-level visual representations in natural scene perception.
Full text 1,513 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · click to expand
Abstract The extrastriate body area (EBA) has been known to selectively respond to human body parts, but recent work suggests it may encode richer scene semantics. However, it remains unclear what aspects of natural scenes constitute the semantic representation in the EBA. Here we address this question by analyzing the relationship between object co-occurrence in natural scene captions and EBA responses predicted by caption-based encoding models. This revealed object category pairs associated with EBA activity, leading to the hypothesis that EBA encodes the speed of human body motion implied in scenes. A subsequent behavioral experiment and correlation analyses confirmed this, showing strong correlations between EBA responses and implied motion ratings. In addition, the representation of implied body motion extends into the fusiform body area (FBA). Variance partitioning further showed that while body-related features such as the number of people and body size also contributed, implied motion uniquely explained the largest portion of EBA and FBA responses. Overall, semantic representations in body-selective regions are jointly shaped by multiple body-related features, with implied motion as the primary contributor. Our co-occurrence-based approach, combined with brain-to-model mapping methods, offers a novel, interpretable framework for understanding high-level visual representations in natural scene perception. Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest.

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2025) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-05-20T01:45:00.602351+00:00