Hi Ed,
> areas? I.e., does it give clear, well labeled surface views of the fusiform
> gyrus? Does it show an up to date parcellation of Brodmann's areas and how
> they correspond to presumed functional areas (visual areas are of particular
> interest to me)?
Yes and no. Yes, the views are excellent, clear, and extremely well
labeled. These are entirely macro-anatomic labels, however, and not
Brodmann labels. As I'm sure you know, Broadmann maps are
cytoarchitectonic and do not necessary correspond well to
anatomical landmarks in any individual. The fact that many groups still
include putative Broadman areas in their imaging papers is probably a
hangover from the fact that the initial atlas used (T&T) rather glibly
included BA numbers despite not doing the histology.
> I.e., is it really useful
> for helping one communicate to other people what part of cortex one is
> talking about when one tries to identify the locus of a cortical activation?
Absolutely. Your examples are good ones. Most of the temporal lobe
gyri are very large. Simply saying "fusiform activation was found" is
almost totally meaningless (particularly as many papers confuse the
fusiform with both the inferior temporal gyrus and the parahippocampal
gyrus). This gets compliated further when you notice how many tables of
activations have errors in them such that the reported coordinate could
not possibly be in the anatomical region they describe.
So I totally agree that a detailed and accurate reporting of the anatomy
is the most useful way to describe activations. THis is precisely what I
use the Duv. atlas for.
Good luck,
Joe
|