Article

Neural correlates of processing facial identity based on features versus their spacing.

Department of Psychology, Neuroscience and Behaviour, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., Canada.
Neuropsychologia (Impact Factor: 3.48). 05/2007; 45(7):1438-51. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2006.11.016
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Adults' expertise in recognizing facial identity involves encoding subtle differences among faces in the shape of individual facial features (featural processing) and in the spacing among features (a type of configural processing called sensitivity to second-order relations). We used fMRI to investigate the neural mechanisms that differentiate these two types of processing. Participants made same/different judgments about pairs of faces that differed only in the shape of the eyes and mouth, with minimal differences in spacing (featural blocks), or pairs of faces that had identical features but differed in the positions of those features (spacing blocks). From a localizer scan with faces, objects, and houses, we identified regions with comparatively more activity for faces, including the fusiform face area (FFA) in the right fusiform gyrus, other extrastriate regions, and prefrontal cortices. Contrasts between the featural and spacing conditions revealed distributed patterns of activity differentiating the two conditions. A region of the right fusiform gyrus (near but not overlapping the localized FFA) showed greater activity during the spacing task, along with multiple areas of right frontal cortex, whereas left prefrontal activity increased for featural processing. These patterns of activity were not related to differences in performance between the two tasks. The results indicate that the processing of facial features is distinct from the processing of second-order relations in faces, and that these functions are mediated by separate and lateralized networks involving the right fusiform gyrus, although the FFA as defined from a localizer scan is not differentially involved.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
94 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Prior studies have shown that performance on standardized measures of memory in children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is substantially reduced in comparison to matched typically developing controls (TDC). Given reported deficits in face processing in autism, the current study compared performance on an immediate and delayed facial memory task for individuals with ASD and TDC. In addition, we examined volumetric differences in classic facial memory regions of interest (ROI) between the two groups, including the fusiform, amygdala, and hippocampus. We then explored the relationship between ROI volume and facial memory performance. We found larger volumes in the autism group in the left amygdala and left hippocampus compared to TDC. In contrast, TDC had larger left fusiform gyrus volumes when compared with ASD. Interestingly, we also found significant negative correlations between delayed facial memory performance and volume of the left and right fusiform and the left hippocampus for the ASD group but not for TDC. The possibility of larger fusiform volume as a marker of abnormal connectivity and decreased facial memory is discussed.
    Behavioral sciences. 01/2013; 3(3):348-371.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We investigated how face-selective cortical areas process configural and componential face information and how race of faces may influence these processes. Participants saw blurred (preserving configural information), scrambled (preserving componential information), and whole faces during fMRI scan, and performed a post-scan face recognition task using blurred or scrambled faces. The fusiform face area (FFA) showed stronger activation to blurred than to scrambled faces, and equivalent responses to blurred and whole faces. The occipital face area (OFA) showed stronger activation to whole than to blurred faces, which elicited similar responses to scrambled faces. Therefore, the FFA may be more tuned to process configural than componential information, whereas the OFA similarly participates in perception of both. Differences in recognizing own- and other-race blurred faces were correlated with differences in FFA activation to those faces, suggesting that configural processing within the FFA may underlie the other-race effect in face recognition.
    Cognitive neuroscience 05/2014; · 2.19 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Congenital prosopagnosia (CP), an innate impairment in recognizing faces, as well as the other-race effect (ORE), a disadvantage in recognizing faces of foreign races, both affect face recognition abilities. Are the same face processing mechanisms affected in both situations? To investigate this question, we tested three groups of 21 participants: German congenital prosopagnosics, South Korean participants and German controls on three different tasks involving faces and objects. First we tested all participants on the Cambridge Face Memory Test in which they had to recognize Caucasian target faces in a 3-alternative-forced-choice task. German controls performed better than Koreans who performed better than prosopagnosics. In the second experiment, participants rated the similarity of Caucasian faces that differed parametrically in either features or second-order relations (configuration). Prosopagnosics were less sensitive to configuration changes than both other groups. In addition, while all groups were more sensitive to changes in features than in configuration, this difference was smaller in Koreans. In the third experiment, participants had to learn exemplars of artificial objects, natural objects, and faces and recognize them among distractors of the same category. Here prosopagnosics performed worse than participants in the other two groups only when they were tested on face stimuli. In sum, Koreans and prosopagnosic participants differed from German controls in different ways in all tests. This suggests that German congenital prosopagnosics perceive Caucasian faces differently than do Korean participants. Importantly, our results suggest that different processing impairments underlie the ORE and CP.
    Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 01/2014; 8:759. · 2.91 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Download
30 Downloads
Available from
Jun 4, 2014