China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Prosopagnosia
Published in Alexander R. Toftness, Incredible Consequences of Brain Injury, 2023
The difference between the two types of prosopagnosia that I have mentioned seems to lie in a brain region called the fusiform gyrus, located in the temporal lobe. In people with acquired prosopagnosia, this region is physically and permanently damaged (Barton, 2008). In people with developmental prosopagnosia, research suggests that this brain region has fewer brain cells, leading to a diminished face recognition ability (Garrido et al., 2009). To be a bit more specific, there are at least three different regions of the brain that respond to faces—sometimes called the fusiform face area, the occipital face area, and the face-selective superior temporal sulcus—and when a person looks at faces, those regions respond in somewhat different ways, showing that they have different jobs in the process of face identification (Liu et al., 2010). On average, damage to the right-side fusiform area is more likely to cause prosopagnosia than damage to the left-side fusiform area, and the evidence suggests that there are variants of prosopagnosia depending on the specific location of the damage, such as whether or not it's more of a vision or more of a memory issue (Albonico & Barton, 2019). That may sound straightforward, but trust me, it is not. While most researchers agree that damage to those brain regions, especially the fusiform gyrus, can lead to prosopagnosia, researchers certainly do not agree about the boundaries of the condition. That is: what exactly is prosopagnosia?
A brief history of dreams
Published in Josie Malinowski, The Psychology of Dreaming, 2020
They also found that areas of the brain known to be active during certain types of waking cognition were active for the same cognition during sleep. For example, when we look at a person’s face when we’re awake, a region called the ‘fusiform face area’ becomes active. Likewise, Siclari’s team found that when we dream of a face, a brain region very closely related to this area is active. This shows that looking at a face in waking life, and dreaming of a face, rely on very closely related areas of the brain.
Psychological representation of visual impairment
Published in John Ravenscroft, The Routledge Handbook of Visual Impairment, 2019
Jennifer C. Fielder, Michael J. Proulx
In specific relation to a modality independent representation for faces, the fusiform face area (FFA) is an area of the ventral stream that receives input from the lateral geniculate nucleus (LGN) and projects into V1, which is associated with face processing in sighted individuals (Haxby et al., 1999). There is evidence that congenitally blind individuals show more activation in the fusiform face area (FFA) when hearing voices, compared to late blind and sighted individuals (Gougoux et al., 2009). This suggests that the fusiform face area (FFA), part of the “visual” cortex, is also responsive to relevant auditory stimuli associated with a face (voices) and that the fusiform face area (FFA) subserves an abstract representation of faces regardless of the sensory modality (Pietrini et al., 2004).
Faces: Identification and Biases
Published in Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 2020
Some researchers have suggested that the ORB results from differences in the perception of own-race and cross-race faces—that cross-race faces are perceived less holistically than own-race faces (Johnson & Fredrickson, 2005). Facial recognition has been localized to an area of the brain called the fusiform face area (FFA) or fusiform cortex. The FFA is less active in response to cross-race faces than own-race faces, which suggests that cross-race faces are perceived less holistically than own-race faces (Johnson & Fredrickson, 2005). An additional explanation for the ORB is that when viewing cross-race faces, people focus more on cues of racial category than on cues of individual identity. Racial differences are detected faster than other social differences, such as gender, age, or emotional expression (Johnson & Fredrickson, 2005).
Excessive bodybuilding as pathology? A first neurophysiological classification
Published in The World Journal of Biological Psychiatry, 2019
Moritz Julian Maier, Florian Benedikt Haeussinger, Martin Hautzinger, Andreas Jochen Fallgatter, Ann-Christine Ehlis
A very popular explanatory model for BDD is the cognitive behavioural model (Veale et al. 1996; Veale 2004), which focuses on the negative appraisal of one’s own internal body image. This negative appraisal is based on various factors, such as rumination on ugliness and comparative processes to one’s own ideal or the processing of the self as an aesthetic object. A specific factor, which is postulated by Veale (2004), is the selective attention towards body-related images (e.g., Osman et al. 2004). Feusner et al. (2010) conducted a study where the subjects (BDD group vs healthy controls) had to associate one of two pictures (faces vs circles) as fast and accurately as possible to the matching target stimulus. They found out that the processing of faces differed significantly in BDD compared to a control group (higher reaction times and higher error rates in the BDD group), but there was no difference in processing objects (Feusner et al. 2010). Unfortunately, in this study no imaging data were obtained, but it can be assumed that these behavioural effects are associated with specific activation in corresponding brain regions (presumably the Fusiform Face Area in particular).
A novel combined visual scanning and verbal cuing intervention improves facial affect recognition after chronic severe traumatic brain injury: A single case design
Published in Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 2021
Suzane Vassallo, Jacinta Douglas
There is significant heterogeneity in the aetiology (Croker & McDonald, 2005; Ponsford, 2013) and subsequent pathophysiology of TBI (Saatman et al., 2008). The cortical network subserving facial affect recognition is complex, vast, intertwined and highly vulnerable to insult following this type of injury. The frontal, prefrontal, parietal, temporal and occipital cortices, along with a number of subcortical areas, have been implicated as having a role in facial affect processing (Neumann et al., 2016; Sabatinelli et al., 2011; Vuilleumier & Pourtois, 2007). While these areas work together, their activation is distributed across time and cortical location (Vuilleumier & Pourtois, 2007). Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) has demonstrated that different neuroanatomical structures serve differential functions in affect recognition, including perception, emotion replication and experience, and conceptual understanding (see Figure 1 in Neumann et al., 2014). The fusiform face area (FFA) is the part of the visual system selectively concerned with face perception. It is located in the inferior temporal cortex within the fusiform gyrus (Kanwisher et al., 1997). Reduced activation of the right fusiform gyrus on fMRI differentiates patients with TBI who have poor facial affect recognition from those who do not (Neumann et al., 2016; Rigon et al., 2018). Recent work has highlighted that, following moderate to severe TBI, functional connectivity is reduced in what is described as the “facial affect processing network” (Rigon et al., 2017). Others have also shown that diffuse axonal injury impairs facial affect recognition soon after TBI (Green et al., 2004).