As past studies indicated the possible relationship between language development and face scanning [ 8, 14, 15] or gaze following [ 9, 16], we examined whether the individual differences in receptive language score predicted the eye-tracking measures but found no such relationship between these at either visit or in either group (all R 2 < 0.15, all F < 3.37, all p > 0.080).
There are considerable differences in the density of receptors and receptive field sizes among the glabrous skin locations, the hands and the lips being most densely populated [ 2, 3] and having small receptive fields [ 3, 4].
In addition, using the approach described by Labarta et al. [ 22], we found no significant differences in the gene expression profiles of receptive endometrium samples from patients with high or normal serum [P], whatever the [P] threshold on the day of hCG administration (data not shown), thus strongly suggesting again that endometrial receptivity is similar in patients with normal and high [P].
For anal sex acts in male male partnerships, it was also notable that there were no significant differences in the numbers of insertive and receptive anal sex acts occurring with HIV-positive, HIV-negative, and HIV-serounknown partners across the three recall periods.
Contrary to that, we favour the 'repulsion effect' explanation that takes into account inherent differences between foveal and peripheral encoding of spatial information which correlate with differences in average receptive field sizes involved in visual encoding.
Thus, the centre-periphery organization favours the detection of movement; in a similar way it favours the detection of contours because these give rise to differences in the illumination of the parts of the receptive fields.
To distinguish movements of objects and the background, object motion sensitive (OMS) RGCs respond to differences in the timing of texture movements in their receptive field center and surround (Olveczky et al., 2003; Zhang et al., 2012).
11, 12 The difference in the level of receptive language ability for those confirmed before 9 months and those confirmed later is approximately 0.6 standard deviations.
As there was no significant difference in the MLR between the receptive and insertive subjects (p = 0.122) we combined them (mean 13.9±sem 2.0%) and analysed against the 3rd party cells (5.0±1.2%).
The attentional normalization model suggests that it may depend more on changes related to sensory normalization, such as differences in receptive field size or the need to remove redundancy in sensory coding [11], than on differences in the strengths of inputs from higher centers.
