Diagrammatic representation of the partial labeling protocol used in the present study.

<p>Sagittal views of landmarks placed every 4th section through the hippocampus are shown for <b>A.</b> 1-week-old, <b>B.</b> 39-week-old, <b>C.</b> 260-week-old rhesus macaque. Note the presence of a susceptibility artifact between brain and the floor of the skull at the level of the entorhinal cortex (white arrows). This artifact was present in all scans. However, it did not interfere with the hippocampus segmentation protocol at any age. Scale Bar = 1 cm.</p

Example Renderings of hippocampi segmented via the partial labeling protocol and SegAdapter corrections 1 week, 4 week, 8 week, 13 week, 26 week, 39 week, 52 week, 156 week, and 260-week-old rhesus macaque.

<p>Red renderings are the semi-automated hippocampus segmentations and green renderings are SegAdapter corrected hippocampus segmentations. Manual tracings are shown in blue, and are obscured due to high overlap with SegAdapter segmentations. Scale Bar = 0.5 cm.</p

Comparison of Hippocampus Segmentation Methods.

<p>Average DICE coefficients for semi-automated segmentation and SegAdapter methods compared to manually segmented hippocampi. Data are from 24 rhesus macaques, 12 male and 12 female. Error given +/− standard deviations from the mean (sd).</p

Example segmentation for of the partial labeling protocol across ages.

<p>The coronal slices are from the same primate at 1 week, 4 weeks., 13 weeks, 26 weeks, 52 weeks, and 260 weeks of age. In red is the landmark guided partial label segmentation. In green are results of the SegAdapter adjustment. The outlines in blue are the manual segmentations for these sections. Note that the segmentation error (in red) appears to be systematic across ages. This error is primarily due to erroneously segmenting temporal horn as hippocampus. Scale bar = 1 cm.</p

Plots of Hand Traced manual hippocampus segmentations compared to the results of Partial Label guided semiautomated segmentation as well as SegAdapter corrected volumes.

<p>Note the Partial Labeling consistently over-estimated hippocampus volumes, whereas the SegAdapter results fall along the unity line with manually segmented volumes.</p

Parasympathetic Activity (RSA) as Predicted by Psychological Content.

<p>Note: Dependent variable is RSA. Bolded font indicates significant predictor variables.</p

PEP by valence.

<p>Each data point represents the mean PEP (in milliseconds) for videos of a given average valence score across the four subjects. The regression line is based on the coefficients in <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0071170#pone-0071170-t003" target="_blank">Table 3</a>. It depicts the influence of valence on PEP controlling for all other psychological variables. The Y-axis has been repositioned for ease of interpretation; the intercept occurs when valence is neutral (scored value of 0).</p

Experimental Procedure.

<p>a) Eye-tracker calibration. b) Test chamber acclimation phase. c) Experimental phase. d) Schematic of electrode placement on monkeys. e) Examples of the ECG signal overlaid onto a cardiac impedance signal for one ensemble 30-second movie.</p

Sympathetic Activity (PEP) as Predicted by Psychological Content.

<p>Note: Dependent variable is PEP. Bolded font indicates significant predictor variables.</p

Psychological content variables, definitions, and characteristic ranges with variances.

<p>Note: Distribution of videos by valence is as follows: −2.8 through −2.0 (N = 36); −1.8 through −1.0 (N = 10); −.80 through −.2 (N = 20); 0 (N = 31); 0.2 through 0.8 (N = 84); 1.0 through 1.8 (N = 59); 2.0 through 2.4 (N = 60).</p