W2: Neuroscience and tORE in facial recognition Flashcards
(30 cards)
What are the three main neuroimaging methods used in face recognition?
fMRI, EEG/ERP and tDCS
How is fMRI used in face recognition?
Takes images of brain activity whilst performing a function e.g. looking at a face, to create a functional map
What did Kanwisher et al (1997) measure and find when trying to see brain activation in face recognition?
Aimed to see whether different brain areas were activated in response to faces compared to other series of stimuli. Found there was a higher activation in response to face images compared to scrambled faces and houses. They still found that pictures of faces had higher recognition than hands. Consistently found activation in the FFA (face fusiform area)
What account does Kanwisher et al’s (1997) research support?
The specificity account of facial recognition, as activation was higher for faces on FFA
What did What did Gauthier et al (1999) measure and find when trying to see brain activation in face recognition?
FFA activated by a greeble expertise (objects that resemble human characteristics)- as long as the ppts had been trained, they elicited the same reaction
What account does Gauthier et al’s (1999) research support?
Supports expertise account by challenging the FFA hypothesis
What did Rossion et al (2002) measure in relation to ERPs and facial recognition?
Showed that ERPs recorded before the training phase found a larger inversion effect on N170 component for faces compared to greebles however this was NOT the case for results after training phase with categories of greebles where inversion effect on N170 was comparable for 2 stimulus types.
What is the N170?
A negative ERP component that peaks after a visual stimulus, particularly faces, measured using EEG
What is used as an index for expertise in face inversion effect?
When faces are inverted there is an enlarged M170 response which is also delayed- this has not been shown for many other stimuli and suggests there must be something special about faces in particular
What did Civile and Zhao et al (2014) do in their checkerboard inversion effect on the N170 study?
Participants were asked to look at a set of checkerboards presented one at a time- some were drawn from familiar categories whereas others where drawn from familiar ones. Half presented upright and half inverted. Control- other stimuli were novel checkerboard so ppts did not know if these were upright or inverted.
What did Civile and Zhao et al (2014) find in their checkerboard inversion effect on the N170 study?
First evidence that you can obtain using an inversion effect that does not remind you of phases in any way. Checkerboard study is a strong example of expertise learning in the lab, showing it can result in similar effects for faces.
What did Civile et al (2016) measure in their tDCS and brain stimulation study?
They investigated how tDCS was modulated by the inversion effect to see if it was possible to modulate, similarly towards checkerboards and faces. If you could modulate the effects similarly, it would suggest that there is module expertise at the crux.
What did Civile and Quaglia et al (2021) measure in their study on tDCS on the inversion effect?
Stimulation was delivered whilst ppts performed a matching task, either involving faces or checkerboard depending on condition.
What did Civile and Quaglia et al (2021) find in their study on tDCS on the inversion effect?
They found that the matching task with faces had overall similar performance to the checkerboard. The inversion effect reduced significantly compared to sham (control) but the sham group developed perceptual learning ad expertise.
Inversion effect in the anodal group- reduced but remaining inversion effect for phases is larger than the fully reduced inversion effect for checkerboard. Important as it shows aside from the perceptual expertise component, there is something else that keeps the inversion effect.
How did Malpass and Kravitz measure the first evidence of the other race effect?
Reported the first demonstration that people are better at recognising their own race compared to other races- has since been replicated in studies with diff racial grpups and is classically reflected by a crossover interaction between race of ppts and race of faces in discrimination accuracy.
How can the ORE be applied to social contexts? Give examples
Studies of real world impact have focused on failures of eyewitness testimony of innocent people incorrectly identified by an eyewitness of a diff race.
There has also been investigations of the effects of ORE in security settings e.g. failures of face matching by police or in passport control (bate et al 2019)
Studies show influence on social interactions- ‘victims’ of ORE who have been failed to be recognised and the ‘perpetrator’ (person who has failed to recognise them)
How did Michel et al (2006) measure the ORE in Caucasian and Asian faces?
All faces were young students (between 18-25), unfamiliar to ppts, either from China or Belgium. External features removed- neutral expression- two sets of 40 faces of each race used to measure ORE.
Study phase- instructed to memorise faces to recognise later- face for 3s, interval 1s. Recognition phase followed immediately afer- performed a force choice recognition test- 20 faces they had seen had to be recognised amongst 40 faces as quickly as possible.
What did Michel et al (2006) find when measuring the ORE in Caucasian and Asian faces?
Caucasian ppts were better at recognising Caucasian phases and Asian ppts were better at recognising Asian faces
What is the main debate about the reasoning behind the ORE?
Social motivation- observers, esp those with more prejudiced racial attitudes would not be motivated to differentiate members of other races which results in weaker memory.
Other theory is that individuals have to think categorically about outgroup racial members, leading them to process facial features differently from own races.
Essentially- guided by social categorisation and based on group membership
What is the perceptual expertise reasoning behind the ORE?
Lack of contact or visual experience with other race faces results in a difficulty in processing them configurally, so other races would therefore be treated using a more featural processing. Evidence has been provided that the size of the ORE would vary with the amount of interracial experience that individuals have in their everyday life.
How did Golby et al (2001) measure the FFA and the ORE?
Used African American and European American right handed men aged 18-30.
Blocked design where ppts viewed stimuli (coloured photographs of 42 AA and 42 EA males, alongside antique radios). Counterbalanced blocks where stimuli were shown in a scan- ppts asked to press a button to indicate attention to stimuli and asked to memorise it. After, an unscanned recognition memory test was administered - asked if they had seen the faces or radios before.
What did Golby et al (2001) find when measuring the FFA and the ORE?
No differences between ppts at recognising antique radios. EA ppts were much better at recognising EA faces compared to AA faces but AA ppts viewed the faces equally. Shows that there are brain effects of ORE rather than just solely behavioural.
How did Vizioli et al (2010) measure the N170 effect and the ORE in an EEG and behavioural experiment?
Used Caucasian, African and Asian faces.
Ppts had to press ‘s’ key everytime a green face appeared and ‘k’ for red face (border of the face)- 5 blocks of red and green faces appearing 8% of trials. This was an EEG study so they wore exquipment to measure.
Behavioural aspect- To directly assess the level of ORE and FIE, they recalled same subjects asking them to take part in a behavioural experiment. Told to memorise the new faces for each race- had to acknowledge whether each face was old or new by pressing s or k.
