Are Faces Special? P2: Neuroscience Flashcards
(36 cards)
What is an fMRI?
Non invasive imaging technique that detects brain activity by detecting changes in oxygen levels in the blood
- Relies on cerebral blood flow and neuronal activation being coupled
What are the advantages and limitations of fMRI?
+ve
- Readily available in clinical and academical research
- Non-invasive
- Provides high resolution anatomic scans
-ve
- Poor temporal resolution
What was part 1 of Kanwisher’s experiment (1997) ?
- 20 healthy subjects <40
- Authors searched fot any occipitotemporal areas that may be specialised for face perception by looking within each subject region in the ventral pathway that responded more significantly during passive viewing of faces
What did the results of P1 of Kanwisher’s study show?
Only the fusiform gyrus was activiated consistently across subjects for alll the faces
What was the comparison between in part II of Kanwisher’s study?
Intact faces and scrambled faces in which the black regions were rearranged to create a stimulus unrecognisable as a face
What did the data in P2 in K’s study show?
Higher activation for face than non face stimuli
What was the summary of P2 of K’s study?
The region in each subject’s fusiform gyrus that responds more strongly to faces than objects also responds more strongly to intact than scrambled faces and to faces than houses
What was Part III of K’s study?
- Subjects viewed images of people who were wearing a black hat vs human hands
What was P3 of K’s meant to test?
- Would the response of the candidate face area generalise to the different viewpoints?
- Is the area involved in recognising the face on the basis of the hair and other external features on the head or on the basis of its internal features?
What did P3 of K’s study find?
Higher activation for faces vs hands.
What is the face fusiform area (FFA)?
Cortical region in the fusiform gyrus that is found to be more highly activated when P’s are presented with faces than when they viewed sets of non-face stimuli
What was Gauthier et al (1999) study?
- Subjects trained with Greebles until they were as fast at categrosiing them at indi. level as they were at family level
What was expertise training in terms of greebles?
- Ps trained to categorise 30 Greebles at ‘family’ and ‘individual’ level until they could make both types of judgements
- Performance assessed in name-verification trials
What tasks were part /of Gauthier’s experiment
- 8 sequential matching tuns per fMRI session, 4 with Greebles and 4 with faces
- 5 stimulus sets, each including 8 grayscale faces and 8 greebles of the same family were used in sequential matching tasks
- Pictures repeated 12x per session
What were the results of Gauthier’s study?
- Confirmed intial preference for faces, more upright-specific activation found for faces over Greebles was stronger in R Hemisphere
What implications did the results of Gauthier’s study have?
Interpreting the role of th fusiform ‘face area’ in visual object recognition
- The inversion effect can be obtained for faces in face-specific area, and a similar effecr can be produced for novel objects after expertise training
What is electroencephlography (EEG) ?
- Measures electrical activity generated by the synchronised activity of thousands of neutrons - allows detection of activity in cortical areas
What are Event related potentials?
- Small voltages generated in the brain structures in response to specific stimuli
How are ERP’s obtained?
Averaging EEG fragments in multiple trials - non-invasive
What is the N170?
Extensively studied ERP marker of facial processing
What did Rosin et al (2002) find about the N170?
ERPs recorded before the training phase revealed a a larger inversion effect on the N170 component for faces compared to that found for Greebles
Who did the Checkerboard Inversion Effect on the N170 experiment?
Civile, Zhao et al (2014)
What were participants instructed to do during the categorization phase? (C&V)
Press a key to start, then categorize checkerboard stimuli into two categories using “x” or “.” with immediate feedback on accuracy.
How many checkerboard exemplars were used in the categorization phase, and how were they distributed?
128 exemplars total: 64 from each of two categories (e.g., A & C).