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: 3.45). 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
 · 
95 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a non-invasive brain stimulation technique that can modulate cortical excitability. Although the clinical value of tDCS has been advocated, the potential of tDCS in cognitive rehabilitation of face processing deficits is less understood. Face processing has been associated with the occipito-temporal cortex (OT). The present study investigated whether face processing in healthy adults can be modulated by applying tDCS over the OT. Experiment 1 investigated whether tDCS can affect N170, a face-sensitive ERP component, with a face orientation judgment task. The N170 in the right hemisphere was reduced in active stimulation conditions compared with the sham stimulation condition for both upright faces and inverted faces. Experiment 2 further demonstrated that tDCS can modulate the composite face effect, a type of holistic processing that reflects the obligatory attention to all parts of a face. The composite face effect was reduced in active stimulation conditions compared with the sham stimulation condition. Additionally, the current polarity did not modulate the effect of tDCS in the two experiments. The present study demonstrates that N170 can be causally manipulated by stimulating the OT with weak currents. Furthermore, our study provides evidence that obligatory attention to all parts of a face can be affected by the commonly used tDCS parameter setting.
    PLoS ONE 12/2014; 9(12):e115772. · 3.53 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Swiss Journal of Psychology 01/2014; 73(4):215-224. · 0.57 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. · 2.90 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Download
34 Downloads
Available from
Jun 4, 2014