scholarly journals Corrigendum to “The Preponderant Role of Fusiform Face Area for the Facial Expression Confusion Effect: An MEG Study” [Neuroscience 433C (2020) 42–52]

Neuroscience ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 453 ◽  
pp. 324
Author(s):  
Ke Zhao ◽  
Mingtong Liu ◽  
Jingjin Gu ◽  
Fan Mo ◽  
Xiaolan Fu ◽  
...  
Neuroscience ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 433 ◽  
pp. 42-52
Author(s):  
Ke Zhao ◽  
Mingtong Liu ◽  
Jingjin Gu ◽  
Fan Mo ◽  
Xiaolan Fu ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 28 (9) ◽  
pp. 1345-1357 ◽  
Author(s):  
Merim Bilalić

The fusiform face area (FFA) is considered to be a highly specialized brain module because of its central importance for face perception. However, many researchers claim that the FFA is a general visual expertise module that distinguishes between individual examples within a single category. Here, I circumvent the shortcomings of some previous studies on the FFA controversy by using chess stimuli, which do not visually resemble faces, together with more sensitive methods of analysis such as multivariate pattern analysis. I also extend the previous research by presenting chess positions, complex scenes with multiple objects, and their interrelations to chess experts and novices as well as isolated chess objects. The first experiment demonstrates that chess expertise modulated the FFA activation when chess positions were presented. In contrast, single chess objects did not produce different activation patterns among experts and novices even when the multivariate pattern analysis was used. The second experiment focused on the single chess objects and featured an explicit task of identifying the chess objects but failed to demonstrate expertise effects in the FFA. The experiments provide support for the general expertise view of the FFA function but also extend the scope of our understanding about the function of the FFA. The FFA does not merely distinguish between different exemplars within the same category of stimuli. More likely, it parses complex multiobject stimuli that contain numerous functional and spatial relations.


2005 ◽  
Vol 43 (11) ◽  
pp. 1645-1654 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tzvi Ganel ◽  
Kenneth F. Valyear ◽  
Yonatan Goshen-Gottstein ◽  
Melvyn A. Goodale

2003 ◽  
Vol 358 (1430) ◽  
pp. 415-427 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert T. Schultz ◽  
David J. Grelotti ◽  
Ami Klin ◽  
Jamie Kleinman ◽  
Christiaan Van der Gaag ◽  
...  

A region in the lateral aspect of the fusiform gyrus (FG) is more engaged by human faces than any other category of image. It has come to be known as the ‘fusiform face area’ (FFA). The origin and extent of this specialization is currently a topic of great interest and debate. This is of special relevance to autism, because recent studies have shown that the FFA is hypoactive to faces in this disorder. In two linked functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies of healthy young adults, we show here that the FFA is engaged by a social attribution task (SAT) involving perception of human–like interactions among three simple geometric shapes. The amygdala, temporal pole, medial prefrontal cortex, inferolateral frontal cortex and superior temporal sulci were also significantly engaged. Activation of the FFA to a task without faces challenges the received view that the FFA is restricted in its activities to the perception of faces. We speculate that abstract semantic information associated with faces is encoded in the FG region and retrieved for social computations. From this perspective, the literature on hypoactivation of the FFA in autism may be interpreted as a reflection of a core social cognitive mechanism underlying the disorder.


2016 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 282-294 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rankin W. McGugin ◽  
Ana E. Van Gulick ◽  
Isabel Gauthier

The fusiform face area (FFA) is defined by its selectivity for faces. Several studies have shown that the response of FFA to nonface objects can predict behavioral performance for these objects. However, one possible account is that experts pay more attention to objects in their domain of expertise, driving signals up. Here, we show an effect of expertise with nonface objects in FFA that cannot be explained by differential attention to objects of expertise. We explore the relationship between cortical thickness of FFA and face and object recognition using the Cambridge Face Memory Test and Vanderbilt Expertise Test, respectively. We measured cortical thickness in functionally defined regions in a group of men who evidenced functional expertise effects for cars in FFA. Performance with faces and objects together accounted for approximately 40% of the variance in cortical thickness of several FFA patches. Whereas participants with a thicker FFA cortex performed better with vehicles, those with a thinner FFA cortex performed better with faces and living objects. The results point to a domain-general role of FFA in object perception and reveal an interesting double dissociation that does not contrast faces and objects but rather living and nonliving objects.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document