Since Kanwisher et al’s (1997) original research exploringthe FFA, there has remained much research into the exclusivity of the FFA andfacial perceptions. Kanwisher, Tong and Nakayama, (1998) determined that withthe usage of a fMRI that the FFA reacts to faces. Additional research byKanwisher et al (1999) verified whether the human FFA reacts not only to facesbut to anything else, using fMRI the strongest responses were to stimulicontaining faces, results demonstrating that the FFA is selective for faces. Amagnetoencephalography study found that examples of pareidolia, evoked an earlyactivation in the FFA, at a time and location similar to that evoked by faces,whereas other common objects do not evoke such activation, supporting theexclusiveness of FFA and its part in facial perception (Hadjikhani et al, 2009). Puce et al (1996) usingfMRI found that face stimuli evoked greater right hemispheric activation, withcharacteristic patterns localised to FFS.
Additional evidence for theexclusiveness of FFA and facial evidence originates from (Tong et al., 2000), who discoveredthat activation of the FFA also appears for faces of cats, cartoons, as well ashuman faces, and insignificant for non-face stimuli. A case study of C.K who experiencedagnosia supports the theory of separate procedures in classifying faces, itemsand places etc. He experienced tremendous trouble with simple objectrecognition, also body parts, but perfumed well at recognising faces, providingevidence that the FFA is specialised for processing faces in a normalorientation.
Interestingly, it is found that there is stronger activity in theFFA when a person sees a familiar face as opposed to an unfamiliar one (Weibert& Andrews 2015).