Revision Lecture

1
Revision Lecture
2

• Topics
• Cognitive Models of Memory
• Neural Models of Memory Disorders of Face
  Processing
• Emotion
• Eyegaze
• Other Topics Covered/To be covered
• 5. Are Faces special?
• 6. Race
• 7. Self

There are only 6 questions!
3
Cognitive Models of Face Processing
Bruce Youngs (1986) Model

• Different Processing of Familiar and Unfamiliar
  Faces.
• Malone et al. (1982)
• 2. Sequential processing culminating in name
  generation.
• Young et al. (1985)
• Young et al., (1986 ab)

FRUs Contain structural information about each
known face. PINs Provide information about the
known individual (e.g. occupation, interests,
associates etc - identity-specific semantic
information). Name Generation Separate module
for names of known faces.
4
Shortcomings of the Bruce Young Model

• Does not accommodate unfamiliar face recognition.
• Does not specify the mechanism under which
  familiarity is determined.
• Unclear whether PINs store information or merely
  access it. This is important for reconciling
  findings from the priming literature.

Specifically Repetition Priming effects are
long-lasting but domain-specific (face primes
same face) Semanitc Priming Effects are
short-lived but domain-general (e.g. name primes
face and face primes name)
5
Burton, Bruce Johnston (1990) Interactive
Activation model.
Connections within units are inhibitory. Connectio
ns between units are facilitatory. PIN more of a
gateway to semantic information.
Can account for semantic priming at PIN (Blair
activates semantically related others -
Cameron) Young De Haan (1988) - Patient PH also
semantic shows priming from names.
6
Burton, Bruce Johnston (1990) Interactive
Activation model.
Cameron
FRU
Repetition Priming reflected by increased
strength of FRU-PIN activation. Thus faster
recognition.
Blair
Rooney
Rooney
Blair
PIN
SIU
Cameron
Prime Min.
Rooney
Politician
NIU
Blair
Tory Leader
Cameron
Footballer
7
Accounting for Face Processing Deficits
8
2. Neural Models and Face disorders
9
Recap on Lecture 1 - Whats in a Face?
Female Child Happy White Direct Yes! Daughter Elli
e
Sex Age Affect Race Gaze Emotion Bio Name
) IAC criteria ) for recognition
10
2. Neural Models of Face Processing Haxby et al.
(2000)
Intraparietal Sulcus Spatially-directed attention
Superior Temporal Sulcus Changeable aspects of
faces - perception of eyegaze, expression and
lip movement
Dorsal/Covert
Auditory Cortex Pre-lexical speech perception
Inferior Occipital Gyri Early perception of
facial features
Amygdala, Insula, Limbic Sys. Emotion processing,
emotion response.
Lateral Fusiform Gyrus Invariant aspects of
faces- perception of unique identity.
Anterior Temporal Person identity,
name, Biographical information
Ventral/Overt
Extended System Further processing in concert
with other neural systems
Core System Visual Analysis
11
The Extended System
IPS Spatial Attention AC Pre-lexical
Speech Amygdala Emotion in Face
Evoked by Face MTG Name and Biographical
information.
Referred to as the Dorsal and Ventral
Routes Or Overt and Covert Routes
Amygdala
12
Are Capgras and Prosopagnosia Opposite Sides of
the Same Coin?
Taken from Ellis Lewis (2001) TICS.
13
Are Capgras and Prosopagnosia Opposite Sides of
the Same Coin?
Capgras Patients
Prosopagnosics
Bauer (1984) patient LF asked to select the
correct name from 5 alternatives to match the
photograph of a celebrity. LF performed at chance
level. However, skin conductance responses
recorded during the experiment were stronger for
the correct name than the other 4
foils. Patients also find it hard to learn
incongruent face/name pairs suggesting some
intact covert recognition route.
Familiar Yellow Unfamiliar Red
Show no SCR to familiar faces but can recognise
the face. Intact overt but damaged covert route.
De Haan, E.H.F. et al. (1987) Face recognition
without awareness. Cognit. Neuropsychol. 4,
385314 Young, A.W. and De Haan, E.H.F. (1988)
Boundaries of covert recognition in
prosopagnosia. Cognit. Neuropsychol. 5, 317336
14
3. Emotion
15
Literate Cultures Show Distinctive Facial
Expression For Happiness Sadness Disgust Anger F
ear ) Preliterate cultures show Surprise )
confusion over fear and surprise
16
Sackheim Gur (1978) - RH better at processing
emotion. Amygdala This is mostly associated
with fear (Calder et al., 1996, Morris et al.,
1996), but may also be found in other negative
emotions such as anger, sadness and disgust
(Adolphs et al., 1991 Adolphs, 2002 Cur. Biol).
But is it perceived threat rather than actual
emotion? Whalen et al. (2001) argue that the
pattern of activation found for the amygdala may
not reflect the processing of negative
emotion/threat per se, but more about detecting
ambiguity in the face and how that relates to
predictibility of the persons actions.
17
(No Transcript)
18
Summary of Amygdala Function in Emotion
Recognition

• Part of rapid system for processing highly
  salient stimuli.
• Responds most to autonomic/unconscious stimuli.
• More responsive to fearful than angry faces.
• Also active for ascribing social meaning to
  dynamic representations.
• May actually be important in prediction of threat
  in ambiguous situations (Whalen et al., 2001
  Adams et al., 2003).

19
The Orbito-Frontal Cortex (OFC) and Negative
Emotion
OFC unlike amygdala responds more to explicitly
encoded aversive stimuli perhaps with a view to
generating a response to them. Responds more to
fear than happiness (Kawasaki et al., 2001) and
to anger over sadness (Blair et al., 1999)
Response latency in OFC 120-150ms. Thus OFC like
amygdala can make rapid responses to emotionally
salient stimuli. Can modulate early aspects of
perception
20
The Insular Cortex Basal Ganglia and Disgust
Calder et al. (2000) damage to left insula and
left basal ganglia leads to impaired disgust
recognition and the ability to experience
disgust. Adolphs et al. (2002) patient with
bi-lateral insula damage severely impaired at
experiencing and recognizing disgust from all
types of stimuli.
Phillips et al (1997) RH greater activation for
super-disgust. Sprengelmeyer et al. (1996)
diseases that affect Basal Ganglia (Huntingdons)
characterized by impaired disgust processing
Summary Recognition of disgust appears to occur
in a region associated with experiencing the
feeling of disgust
21
Somatosensory Cortex Lundqvist Dimberg
(1995) When viewing emotion people produce the
same emotion. Does inability to produce affect
emotion recognition? Mobus Syndrome Giannini et
al. (1984) Yes it does. Calder et al. (2000) No
it does not.
22
Different Neural Systems At Different Time Points
Early processing of salient stimuli. Subcortical
route feed-back to OC. Bottom-Up Process
Detailed perception through Core system and
emotional reaction (OFC).
Interaction between visual and somatosensory
areas in recognition of facial affect, and
possible simulation. Top-Down Process
Note the involvement of OFC and amygdala in all
three stages
Adolphs (2002)
23
Summary Multiple distinct brain areas involved
in the perception and recognition of emotion and
in the resultant observer expression of emotion.
Different systems reflect different requirement
for information extraction at different times,
and bottom-up vs. top-down processes. Perception-
Reaction-Conceptual Processes
24
4. Gaze
25
Part 1 Link between gaze and emotion
behaviour. Approach oriented emotions (Joy,
Love, Anger) expressed with DIRECT
gaze. Avoidence-oriented emotions (Sadness,
Disgust, Embarrassment) tend to be expressed with
AVERTED gaze. Redican (1982) Direct gaze signals
dominance/aggression and averted gaze signals
submissive/fear displays. Maintained stare an
indication of potential social interaction
(Grunau Anston, 1995).
26
Affects of gaze of certain emotions (approach vs.
avoidance.) Adams et al. (2005)
Direct gaze increased ratings of
approach-oriented emotions, while averted gaze
increased rating of avoidance-oriented emotion.
27

• Part 2 Detecting Gaze
• Developmental Importance (Baron-Cohen)
• Eye Direction Detector (EDD)
• Perrett et al. (Attention Direction Detector)
• Why is this important?
• Where in the brain does this occur?
• What about groups with disorders (ASD)?

28
Infants show more interest in eyes than other
regions of the face (Morton Johnson, 1991). By
the age of 4 months they can discriminate direct
from averted gaze (Vecera Johnson, 1995). By
18 months children begin to use gaze information
when the intentions of another actors goals are
ambiguous (Phillips et al., 1992). Into
adulthood, eye gaze important for inferring the
mental state of others.
29
Common detection of gaze across many
species. Development (EDD and Theory of Mind -
Baron-Cohen)
Intentionality Detector (ID)
The bee wanted to go to the flower
Eye-Direction Detector (EDD)
Shared Attention Mechanism (SAM)

• Detects eyes
• Computes gaze direction
• Attributes the mental state of seeing to the
  viewer

Theory of Mind Mechanism (ToMM)
ToMM develops Around the age of 4
Attention Detector Head, Eye, Body,
Locomotion Perrett Emery (1994)
Emery (2000)
30
Neural Substrates Perrett (1985, 1991) STS
cells fire to eye, head and body orientation -
Attn Dir. Detector? STS lesion in macaques
reduced gaze processing ability. IPS activation
increased for averted gaze. STS shows large
activation when gaze incongruent with object in
view.Autistic children did not show this
incongruency effect. ASD dont fixate long on
the eyes in general as they have a negative
valence. Eye information in general also leads
to hyperactivation of amygdala and then
hypoactivation of FG to reduce this negative
valence.
31
Part 3 Gaze and Person Categorization Gaze can
affect the salience of categorical
information. (Faster to categorize faces with
direct gaze) Affects likeability judgments (more
likeable of move from averted to direct) Affects
attraction in opposite sex.
32

• 5. The Special Nature of Face Processing
• Faces are Special
• Faces are Not Special

33

• Ellis (1975) suggests that there are three (in
  addition fMRI)
• types of evidencein support of this notion
• Ontogeny
• The Effect of Inversion
• Different Types of Agnosia
• Different Brain Area

34
Part A Faces are Special
Ontogeny Goren, Sarty Wu (1975) - newborns
track faces. Johnson et al. (1991) - 30-min old
track moving face. Meltzoff Moore (1977) -
imitation of basic facial expression in 36-hour
infants. Evidence for innate face processing
mechanism?
35
Part A Faces are Special

• Inversion
• Yin (1969) inversion of mono-oriented objects and
  faces leads to differences in memory performance.
  Faces most affected.
• Yarmey, 1971 - inversion affects recognition of
  familiar faces.
• Yin argued inversion effects due to a two-factor
  face-specific
• process
• A general factor of familiarity
• (for objects in their normal orientation)
• A factor specific to faces
• (But what is this factor?)

36
Part A Faces are Special

• Diamond Carey (1986)
• Familiarity
• Homogeneity of the Stimulus Class
• (i.e similarity of composition of the exemplars
  in a class)
• They distinguish between parts and configuration.

similar parts but different configurations. simil
ar parts and similar configuration.
37
Part A Faces are Special
Holistic processing of upright faces. Farah,
Wilson, Drain Tanaka (1998) Part-based/featural
processing of inverted faces Thatcher illusion
(Thompson, 1980).
38
Part A Faces are Special
Summary of Inversion Effects Faces are
processed in a holistic manner and this is
orientation sensitive. When faces are inverted a
more feature-based strategy is employed. Object
recognition is less susceptible to the effects of
inversion or whole mask interference. Suggesting
that object recognition utilizes a part-based
processing mechanism. Thus faces and objects
utilize a different cognitive processing
mechanism - evidence that faces are special.
39
Part A Faces are Special
Apperceptive vs. Associative Agnosia. Konorski
(1967) 9 different types of associative agnosia
(2 face categories). Are faces special
objects? Prosopagnosia Inability to process
faces - evidence for face specific
disorder. McNeill Warrington (1993) - WJ could
recognize sheep but not people. Farah, Klein
Levinson (1995) LH impaired at face processing
but not due to visual similarity (can do
glasses/within category discrimination) Hecaen
et al. (1974),Feinberg et al. (1994), and
McCarthy Warrington (1986) also report cases
patients who could recognize faces but not
objects. Farah (1996) Evidence for independent
systems specialized for face processing.
40
Part A Faces are Special
Brain Regions Specialized for Face
Processing Prosopagnosia characterized by
damage to ventral-temporal cortex (Fusiform
Gyrus), mainly on the right (De Renzi, 1986).
Split-brain studies (Smylie Gazzaniga,
1983). Kanwisher et al. (1997) ruled out
luminance, within category and living vs.
non-living explanations for FG activation.

• 1. The fusiform gyrus is selectively activated by
  faces compared with various control stimuli.
• 2. That special-purpose cortical machinery exists
  for face
• perception suggests that a single general and
  overarching theory of visual recognition may be
  less successful than a theory that proposes
  qualitatively different kinds of computations for
  the recognition of faces compared with other
  kinds of objects.
• I.E Fusiform Gyrus is special brain region for
  face processing!

41

• Are faces special?
• Evidence of early preference for faces in
  neonates - innate face module? (Goren et al.,
  1975)
• Evidence for face-specific cognitive processing
  utilizing holistic processing of faces.
  Dependent upon upright presentation. (Yin
  Diamond Carey Thompson etc).
• Evidence for a dissociation in face and object
  agnosia (Prosopagnosia vs Object Agnosia)
• Evidence for special brain region (FG) involved
  in face processing (Kanwisher et al.).

42
Part B Faces are Not Special

• Use the same criteria but if one can show the
  following
• Ontogeny Other objects also show preferred
  processing.
• Inversion Inversion cost is also present for
  other types of image.
• Agnosia Examples of agnosia for faces and
  certain objects.
• fMRI Evidence Activation in FG for other types
  of array.
• Then, this would be evidence that faces are NOT
  special.

43
Part B Faces are Not Special
Neonates track face-like stimuli more than
scrambled faces. Goren et al. , 1975 Johnson et
al., 1991).
Preference also evident for patterns reflecting
face-like structure. Thus faces themselves not
special (Simion et al., 2002 B.J. Dev. Psy), but
some innate structural knowledge (CONSPEC)
gt
Ellis Young (1998) argue that other important
factors in the lives of neonates should also
elicit greater fixation (e.g. breasts).
Conclusion Ontogeny NOT special
44
Part B Faces are Not Special

• Inversion
• Diamond Carey (1986) argued for a two-factor
  explanation for
• the face-inversion effect.
• Familiarity - Expertise
• Homogeneity of the Stimulus Class
• (i.e similarity of composition of the exemplars
  in a class)
• Since many classes of object/animal meet the
  second criterion
• then also meeting the first should yield
  inversion effects.
• Found inversion effects for dogs when testing dog
  experts.
• Gauthier Tarr (1997) created Greeble experts
  who were also
• susceptible to part-based processing deficits.
• Inversion effects not evidence for special
  processing.

45
Part B Faces are Not Special
Agnosia Bornstein et al. (1969) report the case
of a prosopagnosic farmer who lost the ability to
recognize his animals as well as his
family. Shuttleworth et al. (1982) also suggest
that prosopagnosia may be characterised by
difficulties in exemplar-based recognition. Oth
er objects possessing a degree of complexity of
form approaching that of faces (for example
various birds, automobiles, or pieces of
furniture) while usually identified by class of
object are almost always misidentified as to
individuality within that class Agnosia data
is therefore inconclusive.
46
Part B Faces are Not Special
fMRI Data
Look back at the Kanwisher data. Note that
activation for objects, scrambled faces, houses
and hands is above baseline. FG above baseline
for all objects.
47
Part B Faces are Not Special
Does FG care about faces or the level of
categorization?
Gauthier et al. (1997)
Turk et al. (2005)
VS.
John Malkovich
Singer
FG cares about level of categorization.
48
Part B Faces are Not Special
What about expertise? Gauthier et al. Experts
activate FG for other arrays.
Brain of a Bird Expert
FacesgtObjects
CarsgtObjects
BirdsgtObjects
49
So are Faces Special?

• Hay Young Clarification
• Ellis Criteria Special Brain Region Unique
  Process
• Development No. No.
• (Ontogeny) Sub Cortical. Hands, Patterns.
• Cognitive N/A No. Expertise
• (Inversion/Categorization) effects for dogs.
• Agnosia No? Prosopagnosic
• also has object rec.
• difficulty.
• fMRI Data No. No. Faces like
• Level of Specificity expert objects.

50
6. Race
51
Race
Own-Race Bias in Memory Why? They all look
alike? Goldstein (1979) found no difference in
facial homogeneity across Japanese, White and
Black faces. Goldstein Chance (1979) conclude
that there is little compelling evidence for the
homogeneity hypothesis. (p.111) Then why?
52
Race
The Contact Hypothesis
Feinman Entwisle (1976) Children living in
integrated neighbourhoods showed a reduced CRD to
those living in segregated neighbourhoods. Dunnin
g, Li Malpas (1998) White basketball fans were
superior to White basketball novices in
recognizing Black faces. Chance et al. (1975)
White Americans recognize Black faces better than
Asian faces due to higher population
frequency. Brigham et al. (1982) reported
frequency of contact correlated with cross-race
recognition accuracy. Sounds a lot like
expertise. So are other-race faces susceptible
to inversion and does this link with FG
activation differences?
53
Race
Rhodes, Brake, Taylor Tan (1989) Memory for
cross-race faces not affected by inversion, but
memory for own-race faces was. Fallshore
Schooler (1995) Only own-race faces affected by
verbal overshadowing - evidence for part-based
processing of other-race faces. Golby et al
(2001) Right FG activation greatest for own-race
faces. Turk et al. (2005) RH shows better memory
for own-race faces in a split-brain subject. Ito
Urland (2005) greater N170 ERP waveform for
own-race faces in a race categorization
task. Suggestion that Race processing akin to
perceptual expertise in RH.
54

• Finally
• Read the question.
• Does it give you pointers (e.g. does it ask for
  very specific information - neuropsychology,
  cognition, fMRI).
• 2. Read the question again!
• Only answer the question in front of you. If it
  specifically asks for fMRI data then make sure
  you spend most of the essay giving that. Dont
  just download everything you have rote learned
  about a topic!
• Read the question again and make sure you
  answered it!