4.5 Article

The implicit processing of categorical and dimensional strategies: an fMRI study of facial emotion perception

期刊

FRONTIERS IN HUMAN NEUROSCIENCE
卷 7, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00551

关键词

individual differences; fMRI; facial expressions; categorical processes; implicit

资金

  1. Japan Science and Technology Agency, Exploratory Research for Advanced Technology, Okanoya Emotional Information Project
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [25242079, 24600028, 24730639] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Our understanding offacial emotion perception has been dominated by two seemingly opposing theories: the categorical and dimensional theories. However, we have recently demonstrated that hybrid processing involving both categorical and dimensional perception can be induced in an implicit manner (Fujimura et al., 2012). The underlying neural mechanisms of this hybrid processing remain unknown. In this study, we tested the hypothesis that separate neural loci might intrinsically encode categorical and dimensional processing functions that serve as a basis for hybrid processing. We used functional magnetic resonance imaging to measure neural correlates while subjects passively viewed emotional faces and performed tasks that were unrelated to facial emotion processing. Activity in the right fusiform face area (FFA) increased in response to psychologically obvious emotions and decreased in response to ambiguous expressions, demonstrating the role of the FFA in categorical processing. The amygdala, insula and medial prefrontal cortex exhibited evidence of dimensional (linear) processing that correlated with physical changes in the emotional face stimuli. The occipital face area and superior temporal sulcus did not respond to these changes in the presented stimuli. Our results indicated that distinct neural loci process the physical and psychological aspects of facial emotion perception in a region-specific and implicit manner.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据