4679367
Social Cognition
- Are faces special?
- Adults
- Neurons in part of fusiform gyrus
("fusiform face area") fire more in response
to faces than other complex stimuli.
- This is still debated - do they respond to just
faces or are they "familiarity" neurons, firing in
response to anything we are experts at
- This is still debated - do they respond to just
faces or are they "familiarity" neurons, firing in
response to anything we are experts at
- Proposagnosia - face blindness. Specific deficit for face
recognition when object recognition unimpaired suggests a
specific system for processing faces
- Neurons in part of fusiform gyrus
("fusiform face area") fire more in response
to faces than other complex stimuli.
- Newborns
- Neonates imitate facial expressions (e.g. lips P, mouth O) as young
as 42 minutes. While they have also been found to imitate other
body movements, the effect is much stronger for the face,
suggesting they are innately fixating on the face
- Neonates preferentially look at face-like stimuli.
Looking times go face>scrambled face>blank, which
suggests an innate tendency to look at faces
- Neonates imitate facial expressions (e.g. lips P, mouth O) as young
as 42 minutes. While they have also been found to imitate other
body movements, the effect is much stronger for the face,
suggesting they are innately fixating on the face
- Adults
- CONSPEC and CONLEARN
- Was suggested due to an observed decline in
face-processing ability at 1-2 months that
re-emerges at 2-3 months
- CONSPEC is the theory that there is an innate subcortical visuomotor
pathway that biases neonates to look at face-like stimuli to provide
input for developing face-processing systems
- CONLEARN is the theory that the input provided by the innate
visuomotor pathway allowed the specialisation of cortical pathways
involved in face processing. The observed dip in face-processing
ability is the "handover" between the two systems
- Problems for CONSPEC/CONLEARN
- A newborn preference has been observed for
attractive over unattractive faces and for direct
gaze over averted gaze. This cannot be
explained by the theory
- Doesn't necessarily mean theory is
fundamentally wrong, just that it is
incomplete. Infant perception is poorly
understood, and when it is better
understood the theory may be able to be
refined
- Doesn't necessarily mean theory is
fundamentally wrong, just that it is
incomplete. Infant perception is poorly
understood, and when it is better
understood the theory may be able to be
refined
- It has been argued that the visuomotor pathway
proposed by CONSPEC is not face-specific. It has been
found that infants will respond with the same looking
preference to any top heavy stimuli as to faces
- In essence, this is what the theory suggests. The
innate visuomotor pathway is not claimed to be a
face-specific pathway, it is claimed to bias infants to
look at faces, as a top-heavy based pathway would
- In essence, this is what the theory suggests. The
innate visuomotor pathway is not claimed to be a
face-specific pathway, it is claimed to bias infants to
look at faces, as a top-heavy based pathway would
- A newborn preference has been observed for
attractive over unattractive faces and for direct
gaze over averted gaze. This cannot be
explained by the theory
- Was suggested due to an observed decline in
face-processing ability at 1-2 months that
re-emerges at 2-3 months
- Face preference development
- Same-species preference
- At birth, there is no looking preference between
human and monkey faces. After the first few months
of life, when infants are habituated to a monkey and
a human face, then shown a novel face, while they
can now discriminate the novel face from the
habituated face, they discriminate equally for
monkey and human faces. This suggests that a
same-species face preference is not innate
- Face-processing does become human specific.
By around 9 months, when infants are
habituated to a monkey face and a human
face and then are shown novel faces, they
only recognise the human face as novel.
- Experiments suggest that learning of
same-species preference is experience-based.
When monkeys were prevented from seeing
faces until the age of 24 months, they showed
no preference for human or monkey faces
post-deprivation. After a subsequent month
of being exposed to either human or monkey
faces, they showed a preference for the
species of face they had been exposed to
- At birth, there is no looking preference between
human and monkey faces. After the first few months
of life, when infants are habituated to a monkey and
a human face, then shown a novel face, while they
can now discriminate the novel face from the
habituated face, they discriminate equally for
monkey and human faces. This suggests that a
same-species face preference is not innate
- Other-race effect
- Preferential looking towards same-race faces and better discrimination of
same-race faces emerges at 6-9 months. Like with the same species
preference, it can be explained in terms of experience biasing input and so
systems specialising to the faces most commonly seen
- The evidence from the development of face type specialisation supports the
idea that perceptual biases direct attention to faces, then expertise leads to
gradual narrowing, as suggested by CONSPEC/CONLEARN
- Preferential looking towards same-race faces and better discrimination of
same-race faces emerges at 6-9 months. Like with the same species
preference, it can be explained in terms of experience biasing input and so
systems specialising to the faces most commonly seen
- Same-species preference
- Autism
- Autism is associated with deficits in face-processing,
but it is debated as to whether it is a deficit in face
processing that contributes to autistic behaviour, or a
general impairment leading to autistic behaviour
which also affects face processing
- Social hypothesis
- A reduced ability to or motivation to
process faces leads to social impairment
- A reduced ability to or motivation to
process faces leads to social impairment
- Non-social hypothesis
- Reduced general social processing abilities
lead to deficits in face processing
- Reduced general social processing abilities
lead to deficits in face processing
- Autism is associated with deficits in face-processing,
but it is debated as to whether it is a deficit in face
processing that contributes to autistic behaviour, or a
general impairment leading to autistic behaviour
which also affects face processing
Want to create your own Mind Maps for free with GoConqr? Learn more.