Is increased activation in the fusiform face area to Greebles a result of appropriate expertise training or caused by Greebles' face likeness?

BACKGROUND: In 2011, Brants et al. trained eight individuals to become Greeble experts and found neuronal inversion effects [NIEs; i.e., higher fusiform face area (FFA) activity for upright, rather than inverted Greebles]. These effects were also found for faces, both before and after training. By claiming to have replicated the seminal Greeble training study by Gauthier and colleagues in 1999, Brants et al. interpreted these results as participants viewing Greebles as faces throughout training, contrary to the original argument of subjects becoming Greeble experts only after training. However, Brants et al.'s claim presents two issues. First, their behavioral training results did not replicate those of Gauthier and Tarr conducted in 1997 and 1998, raising concerns of whether the right training regime had been adopted. Second, both a literature review and meta-analysis of NIEs in the FFA suggest its impotency as an index of the face(-like) processing. OBJECTIVES: To empirically evaluate these issues, the present study compared two documented training paradigms Gauthier and colleagues in 1997 and 1998, and compared their impact on the brain. METHODS: Sixteen NCKU undergraduate and graduate students (nine girls) were recruited. Sixty Greeble exemplars were categorized by two genders, five families, and six individual levels. The participants were randomly divided into two groups (one for Greeble classification at all three levels and the other for gender- and individual-level training). Several fMRI tasks were administered at various time points, specifically, before training (1st), during training (2nd), and typically no <24 h after reaching expertise criterion (3rd). RESULTS: The ROI analysis results showed significant increases in the FFA for Greebles, and a clear neural “adaptation,” both only in the Gauthier97 group and only after training, reflecting clear modulation of extensive experiences following an “appropriate” training regime. In both groups, no clear NIEs for faces nor Greebles were found, which was also in line with the review of extant studies bearing this comparison. CONCLUSION: Collectively, these results invalidate the assumptions behind Brants et al.'s findings.