Relation of clustered anatomical variation to cross-modal response and fractional anisotropy.

<p>A: For each of 52 subjects (blind and sighted), we obtained the BOLD fMRI response in V1 while subjects listened to auditory sentences played forwards and in reverse, as compared to white noise. We modeled the ability of individual variation in the three anatomical clusters to account for variation in cross-modal BOLD fMRI response. For each subject, the x-axis gives the prediction of the model for BOLD fMRI response, and the y-axis the observed response. There was a significant model fit (p = 0.00051). B: Model weights for the fit to the cross-modal response data. Shown are the mean and standard error of weights upon each of the clusters of anatomical variation in their prediction of V1 BOLD fMRI response. Only the first cluster of anatomical variation (V1 cortical <i>thinness</i>) had a fitting weight significantly different from zero. The loading on this weight is negative, indicating that <i>thicker</i> V1 cortex predicts greater cross-modal responses. C: For each of 59 subjects, we measured fractional anisotropy within the optic radiations and splenium of the corpus callosum. We modeled the ability of individual variation in the three anatomical clusters to account for variation in FA. For each subject, the x-axis gives the prediction of the model for FA, and the y-axis the observed measure. The entire model fits the data above chance (p = 0.016). D: Model weights for the fit to the FA data. Shown are the mean and standard error of weights upon each of the clusters of anatomical variation in their prediction of the FA measure. Only the third cluster of anatomical variation (chiasm and LGN volume) had a fitting weight significantly different from zero.</p

Patterns of shared variation in visual pathway anatomy.

<p>A: The eight measures of visual pathway anatomy are illustrated on an axial schematic of the human brain. The groupings of the measures are to assist subsequent interpretation of the data. B: The Euclidean distance matrix and dendrogram for the 8 measures across the sighted population. <i>Left</i>. The square-root, sum-squared difference in values between two measures across subjects provides a measure of Euclidean distance. Darker shades indicate pairings of measures that have similar variation across subjects, and thus lower distance values. <i>Right</i>. The distance matrix was subjected to hierarchical clustering, yielding a dendrogram. The length of each branch reflects the distance between the paired measures. The three primary clusters of anatomical variation are colored green, blue, and red. C: <i>Left</i>. The distance matrix across the 8 measures for the blind population. A similar overall structure is seen as compared to the sighted. <i>Right</i>. The dendrogram derived from measures from the blind subjects. The same overall cluster structure is seen. Note that there is some rearrangement in the measurements assigned to cluster #2 in the blind as compared to the sighted.</p

Mean group differences in the anatomical measures.

<p>Mean group differences in the anatomical measures.</p

Relation of clustered anatomical variation to cross-modal response and fractional anisotropy.

<p>A: For each of 52 subjects (blind and sighted), we obtained the BOLD fMRI response in V1 while subjects listened to auditory sentences played forwards and in reverse, as compared to white noise. We modeled the ability of individual variation in the three anatomical clusters to account for variation in cross-modal BOLD fMRI response. For each subject, the x-axis gives the prediction of the model for BOLD fMRI response, and the y-axis the observed response. There was a significant model fit (p = 0.00051). B: Model weights for the fit to the cross-modal response data. Shown are the mean and standard error of weights upon each of the clusters of anatomical variation in their prediction of V1 BOLD fMRI response. Only the first cluster of anatomical variation (V1 cortical <i>thinness</i>) had a fitting weight significantly different from zero. The loading on this weight is negative, indicating that <i>thicker</i> V1 cortex predicts greater cross-modal responses. C: For each of 59 subjects, we measured fractional anisotropy within the optic radiations and splenium of the corpus callosum. We modeled the ability of individual variation in the three anatomical clusters to account for variation in FA. For each subject, the x-axis gives the prediction of the model for FA, and the y-axis the observed measure. The entire model fits the data above chance (p = 0.016). D: Model weights for the fit to the FA data. Shown are the mean and standard error of weights upon each of the clusters of anatomical variation in their prediction of the FA measure. Only the third cluster of anatomical variation (chiasm and LGN volume) had a fitting weight significantly different from zero.</p

Blind subject group details.

<p>Blind subject group details.</p