Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Psychology > MT1 intro to social/developmental psych- faces > Flashcards

MT1 intro to social/developmental psych- faces Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
Psychology 101 flashcards GRE® Psychology flashcards AP® Psychology flashcards
1
Q

How is perception of faces different to perception of objects

A

Faces are complex and dynamic, fine discrimination needed within and between people to identify different people or at different angles, faces have social importance

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What is the fusiform face area

A

The fusiform gyrus- area of the brain that is activated more to face than non-face stimuli

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

How is there double dissociation for face and object processing in adults

A

Acquired prosopagnosia- specific to recognition of human faces
Suggests object and face processing function independently of one another

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What are domain general processes

A

Processes that might serve learning, perception etc more generally, that become specific over time with experience with faces, but aren’t necessarily face-specific to begin with

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Johnson et al (1991) experiment 1- procedure

A

30min old neonates, tracking procedure following head and eye turns to face-like stimuli- one face-like representation, one scrambled face (same complexity and no of perceptual features), one blank

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Johnson et al (1991) experiment 1- results

A

Babies tracked longer with eye and head mvoement for face stimuli, then scrambled stimuli, then blank stimuli

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Johnson et al (1991) experiment 2- procedure

A

Same eye and head tracking of neonates
Face stimuli, configurational version of a face (v stripped down), upside-down configurational version, scrambled linear face

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Johnson et al (1991) experiment 2- results

A

No effect of condition for head turns
For eye tracking- face stimuli, then a tiny bit below is config stimuli, then inverse and scrambled linear face
Suggests neonates prefer facelike stimuli even with equally visually salient stimuli

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Study showing faces are special to infants even before they are born

A

Reid et al (2017) Face-like or inverted stimuli of lights projected across maternal abdomen moving across the fetal visual field
Ultrasound scans found more foetal head-turns to face-like configuration

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Johnson et al (1991) experiment 2- criticism

A

Reporting of data is sparse

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Study showing face preference varying over first few months

A

Johnson et al (1991)- decline in face preference between 1 and 2 months, that reemerges around 2-3 months

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

What do U shaped developmental curves often suggest

A

The operation of 2 systems- the first cruder and easier to deploy, then during the transition to the 2nd more complex system there is a drop in performance before an even higher level is achieved

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Two-process theory of face processing- what are the 2 pathways

A

Johnson and Morton (1991)-

1) CONSPEC (specific) 2) CONLEARN

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Two-process theory of face processing- what is CONSPEC

A

Johnson and Morton (1991)-

subcortical visuomotor pathway responsible for preferential tracking of faces in newborns (akin to FAP)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Two-process theory of face processing- what is CONLEARN

A

Johnson and Morton (1991)- adult-like cortical pathways specialised for faces that emerge over time as a consequence of experience

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Two-process theory of face processing-how do CONSPEC and CONLEARN work together to develop

A

Johnson and Morton (1991)- CONSPEC predisposes infants to be interested in faces and attend to them, providing substrate that fuels the development of CONLEARN, which may in turn inhibit CONSPEC

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Two-process theory of face processing- summarise how CONSPEC leads to the emergence of a face area in the brain

A

A region of brain receives input only from ovals with inverted triangles
This inverted triangle bias causes the brain region to receive only face-like input, causing it to gradually become specialised for faces

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Criticising CONSPEC- doesn’t explain preference for attractive faces?

A

Slater et al (2000)- faces judged by adults as more attractive (more average, more symmetrical) are looked at for longer by neonates
Only for upright faces, internal features seem important
Too complex behaviour for simplistic CONSPEC

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Criticising CONSPEC- doesn’t explain preference for direct gaze?

A

Farroni et al (2002)- babies preferentially look at faces with direct gaze compared to averted gaze
Processing too sophisticated for CONSPEC?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Criticising CONSPEC- is it really face specific?

A

Cassia et al (2004)- infants have a preference for top-heavy configurations that not specific to faces

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Criticising CONSPEC- possible explanation preferences for attractive/direct gaze/top heavy faces?

A

Better fit to ‘face prototype’ that CONSPEC may be looking for?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Criticising CONSPEC- need for 2 process theory?

A

Data also consistent with gradual development of a single mechanism, reflecting an immature adult system

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Criticism of study suggesting neonate preference for HUMAN faces

A

The human and non-human primate faces used differ in lots of ways- brightness, concentration, contrast… lower level perceptual features may drive looking preference

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Study showing no human-specific neonate preference in first week of life

A

Di Giorgio et al (2012)- 1-3 day old infants shown a human and monkey face matched for perceptual factors eg LSF- they showed habituation so could discriminate the faces, yet showed no looking preference for either face, and preferred upright monkey faces just like with humans

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Study showing no human-specific neonate preference in first week of life- what do the results suggest

A

Monkey faces are initially processed in the same way as human faces (same effect of inversion consistent with top-heavy prototype)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Criticism of stimuli used in most face-processing experiments

A

Stimuli are often 2D isolated faces, or face-like schematic stimuli- in the real world stimuli is very varied and complex eg lots of different angles, movement, which may drive learning (Jayaraman et al, 2017)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Study measuring detection of salient vs non-salient faces- procedure

A

Kelly et al (2019)- monitored eye movement of 3-12 mos viewing scenes with a person present vs absent, and salient vs non-salient
Face was considered ‘detected’ if the first detected movement post-stimulus onset was to face

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

Study measuring detection of salient vs non-salient faces- results

A

Kelly et al (2019)- more first looks to faces than equivalently salient non-face areas of interest
Salient faces more detected than non-salient faces

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

Study measuring detection of salient vs non-salient faces- conclusions

A

Kelly et al (2019)- babies attend to faces regardless of salience, despite varying spatial location, small visual angle and much competing info
MORE IMPRESSIVE FACE DETECTION THAN ASSUMED FROM ARTIFICIAL STIMULI

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

Study supporting experience-based learning of face preference in monkeys- procedure

A

Sugita (2008)- monkeys were separated from their mother at birth and not exposed to faces for 6, 12 or 24 months
Looking preferences to human and monkey faces, and objects was then tested

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

Study supporting experience-based learning of face preference in monkeys- results

A

Sugita (2002)- monkeys showed interest in faces despite no experience of faces but NOT SPECIES-SPECIFIC
1 month post-deprivation- human experience leads to human preference, monkey experience leads to monkey preference
Preferences maintained for at least 12 months after exposure become general

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

Study supporting experience-based learning of face preference in human infants vs adults- procedure

A

Pascalis et al (2002)- adults, 6mos and 9mos do a visual paired comparison paradigm
Familiarised to one human/monkey face then test for a novelty preference to new face (suggests discrimination)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

Study supporting experience-based learning of face preference in human infants vs adults- results

A

Pascalis et al (2002)- adults and 9mos don’t show looking preference between new and familiar monkey faces- can’t distinguish them
6mos show novelty preference to monkeys as well as humans, better at discriminating monkey faces than older people

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

What does it suggest that 6mos can discrminate monkey faces but 9mos and adults can’t (Pascalis et al, 2002)

A

Infants improve at processing stimuli that are meaningful for the environment (human faces), and lose the ability to process stimuli that are irrelevant to the environment (monkeys)
Experience-based learning in face processing

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

Study supporting face processing development as perceptual tuning

A

Pascalis et al (2005)- infants exposed to monkey faces between 6 and 9 months maintained the ability to discriminate monkey at 9 months
Suggests we improve our judgement on things that are relevant and frequent in our life

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

What is the other-race effect (ORE)

A

Human adults are expert at recognising faces, but susceptible to errors when the target face is from an unfamiliar racial group

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

How can the ORE be partly explained by experience

A

We each develop a unique face prototype, the average of all faces we have seen
Optimal tuning is based on experience we will not be well equipped to distinguish faces from an unfamiliar racial group

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
38
Q

Study supporting emergence of ORE in infants

A

Kelly et al (2005)- Caucasian neonates and 3mos do a visual preference task for different race faces
Neonates show no looking preference
3mos- slight looking preference to Caucasian faces, no difference when 2 Caucasian faces are paired

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
39
Q

Study supporting emergence of ORE in infants- what conclusions can be drawn from Kelly et al (2005)’s study

A

Preferential looking for own-race faces emerges by 3 months
Broad and unspecified neonate face processing system becomes tuned to a facial prototype to own-race dimensions through early predominant exposure to own race
Causes preference to familiar own-race face stimuli

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
40
Q

Study into discrimination of different races faces in infants

A

Kelly et al (2007)- tested 3, 6 and 9mo caucasian infants, shown a test pair containing a novel and habituated face
3mos- can discriminate between 2 faces across all races
6mos- can discriminate Chinese and Caucasian faces
9mos- can only discriminate Caucasian faces

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
41
Q

When does Kelly et al (2007)’s study suggest ORE emerges

A

No ORE at 3 months, partial at 6 months, complete at 9 months

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
42
Q

What is the consequence of developed preference towards own-race faces as the more familiar class of faces

A

We develop superior recognition/discrimination for faces of our own racial group

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
43
Q

Study suggesting cultural effects in adult eye movements

A

Kelly et al (2010) Caucasian obervers show more looks to eyes and mouth, East Asian observers show more looks to nose
Looking pattern generalises to sheep faces, and even to non-face stimuli of greebles

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
44
Q

What are Greeble stimuli

A

Invented category of novel objects with small no of parts in common configuration

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
45
Q

Study showing Caucasian development of face scanning patterns

A

Wheeler et al (2011)- for own race, interest in eyes increases with age, mouths go down (nose no change)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
46
Q

Study showing Chinese development of face scanning patterns

A

Liu et al (2011)- for own race, interest in noses increases with age, for other race, nose interest declines with age

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
47
Q

What do cultural differences in scanning patterns in infants reflect

A

Attention being directed to parts of the face that promote meaningful information for that environment (eyes for Caucasian, noses for Chinese)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
48
Q

How are cultural differences of scannign patterns generalised once adopted for faces

A

Extends to other race faces, animal faces, and non-face stimuli

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
49
Q

What is autism

A

A pervasive neurodevelopmental disorder- characterised by qualitative impairments in social/communicative/imaginative behaviors, and repetitive stereotyped patterns of activity and interests

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
50
Q

What is the social hypothesis for differences in face-processing in autistic people

A

Reduced interest in/motivation to process faces -> face processing differences

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
51
Q

What is the non-social hypothesis for differences in face-processing in autistic people

A

Differences in general processing -> face differences

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
52
Q

What conditions have been proposed for a study to argue for face-specific differences in neurotypicals vs people with autism

A

Ewers et al (2013) Studies must

1) Establish a statistic interaction between face/non-face conditions
2) Non-face condition of comparable difficulty and complexity
3) Large sample (heterogeneity)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
53
Q

Autism face-processing study- procedure

A

Ewers et al (2013)- autistic and neurotypical children shown faces, cars and inverted faces in discrimination and memory tasks

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
54
Q

Autism face-processing study-findings

A

Ewers et al (2013)- for both memory and discrimination tasks, main effect of group aka autistic children behave differently across face/car/inverted condition
No interaction between condition (stimulus type) and main effect

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
55
Q

Autism face-processing study- conclusions drawn from main effect of group

A

No evidence for SELECTIVE FACE processing deficit
Suggests general processing differences impact face processing in autistic people
Reduced social motivation (social hypothesis) unlikely to be sole explanation of differences in face processing in autism

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
56
Q

What are the 4 dimensions of developmental theories

A

Innately-specifed vs experience-driven, domain-specific vs domain-general

57
Q

Study supporting experience-based learning of face preference in human infants vs adults- criticism of study

A

Why was the familiarisation time for adults 5 seconds and 20 seconds for infants? May be why adults found it harder to distinguish faces

58
Q

What does the loss of face recognition ability as perception skill becomes specialised for human faces parallel

A

The loss of ability young children experience in speech (Pascalis et al, 2002)

59
Q

Study showing how quickly neonates can learn to recognise their mother’s face

A

Walton et al (1992)- showed 1-4 day old infants a videotape (no olfactory clues) with their mother and a similar looking female, infants sucked more on a teat to keep their mother’s face on the screen

60
Q

Study suggesting limitations in neonates recognising their mother’s face

A

Pascalis et al (1995)- 4day old infants couldn’t distinguish between their mother and an unfamiliar female if they wore headscarves that left only their internal facial features visible
Early facial recognition may be based on external face contours

61
Q

Study suggesting infants can distinguish between facial expressions

A

Field et al (1982)- neonates can be dishabituated by differences in adult facial expression

62
Q

Study showing generalisability of attractive face preference

A

Quinn et al (2008) 3-4mos preferred attractive faces when looking at cat and tiger faces, suggesting they have a general ability to recognise attractive faces

63
Q

Study showing evolutionary importance of early face recognition

A

Zuckerman and Rock (1957)- ‘perceptual organisation must occur before experience… can exert any influence’

64
Q

Suggestion of why infants respond well to face-like configuration (triangle of dots)

A

Southern and Banks (1979)- infants may not be able to resolve the details constituting a facial feature, so may simply be responding to 3 blobs that comprise the features of a face

65
Q

Criticisms of Johnson et al (1991)- no basline?

A

No baseline of infant random head/eye movement, highest rates of tracking are aroudn 40-45 degrees which isn’t far

66
Q

Criticisms of Johnson et al (1991)- experimenter holding baby?

A

In study 1 where infant’s head lay in experimenter’s palm, degree of head rotation was higher than when infant lay in a holder with a head rest- suggests experimenter supporting baby’s head affected/encouraged head movement?

67
Q

Criticisms of Johnson et al (1991)- how can evidence from the study itself support the idea that the infants could just be looking around randomly

A

In the pilot condition where 1mos were lying face up, stimuli were tracked through 90 degrees (ceiling effect) and it was difficult to elicit differential responses- suggests infants just look around randomly

68
Q

Study suggesting a general change in processing around 2/3 months

A

Dodwell (1983)- ‘built-in and biologically adaptive tendency to orient toward external sources of stimulation’ may be controlled by subcortical mechanisms may be inhibited around 2/3 months by the emergence of cortical activity

69
Q

Example of another species were acquisition of preferential face tracking involves 2 processes

A

Domestic chicks acquire filial preferences by 2 processes- predisposition for the chick to attend toward the face region of adults of their species, and a system that learns about the characteristics of objects by mere exposure to them
1st process biases the latter

70
Q

How are individual faces coded according to the face prototype

A

Pascalis et al (2002)- faces are encoded in terms of how they deviate from the face prototype

71
Q

ERP studies suggesting adults vs 6mos process monkey vs human faces differently

A

de Haan et al, 2002- stimulus inversion impairs adult processing of human faces but not monkey faces, while in 6mos inversino affected the ERPS similarly for human AND monkey faces, suggesting the infants process facial identity comparably for the 2 species

72
Q

Study suggesting there may be overlap between the face perception and speech perception system

A

By 3 months, infants are relating face and speech info as they can associate faces with voices (Brookes et al, 2001)

73
Q

What are the alternate explanations for the similar timing parallel development of face and speech perception systems

A

General perceptuo-cognitive tuning apparatus not specific to a single modality that acts as an experience-expectant system
Alternatively, could be a developmental coincidence reflecting a modality-specific, experience-dependent process
(Pascalis et al, 2002)

74
Q

What is the concept of the ‘face space’

A

Valentine (1991)- faces are encoded and stored as individual points in a theoretic multidimensional space defined by dimensions that serve to discriminate faces

75
Q

What happens to the ‘face space’ over the 1st year of infant life

A

Valentine (1991) the face space narrows and becomes attuned to the face they see most often

76
Q

What are the 2 broad views of the nature of infants’ attentional face preferences

A

1) Functional properties of the newborn visual system direct attention to structural properties of stimuli that happen to be found in faces nut are not specific to faces
2) Infants born with a face specific representational bias (Slater et al, 2010)

77
Q

What does Slater argue explains newborns’ attraction to faces

A

Slater, 1993- The human face has properties that individually attract attention but aren’t face specific eg movement, 3D, areas of high contrast

78
Q

What neonate ability suggests the early representational bias is more elaborate than a 3 blob preference

A

Neonates can imitate facial gestures produced by the first face they have seen (Reissland, 1998)

79
Q

Study supporting idea that attractive preference is due to attrative faces being easier to class as a face

A

Kalakanis (1998)- 15 min old newborns don’t show an attractiveness preference, as they have not formed a prototype from observing faces yet

80
Q

Study supporting sex of caregiver face preference

A

Quinn et al (2002) 3mos reared by a female caregiver show novelty preference when shown a new and familiarised female face. Despite being able to discriminate male faces, they will not exhibit a novelty preference for a new face
Suggests infants represent a category of female faces as individual exemplars while male faces are represented at the category level ‘male’

81
Q

Study suggesting malleability of ORE

A

Sangrigoli and de Schonen (2004)- short term familiarisation with just a few exemplars of another race group is enough to reduce the ORE (Sangrigoli and de Schonen, 2004)

82
Q

Study showing development of ORE in cross-race environment

A

Bar-Haim et al (2006)- infants raised in a cross-race environment with intensive exposure to Caucasian and African non-caregiver faces did not show the ORE and looked equally at faces of both races

83
Q

What does it suggest about categorision of classes of faces that 9mos can discriminate between own race faces but not other race faces- own-race faces?

A

Slater et al (2010)- Suggests own-race faces are represented through categorisation (formation of distinct groups, each containing similar yet distinguishable exemplars)

84
Q

What does it suggest about categorision of classes of faces that 9mos can discriminate between own race faces but not other race faces- other-race faces?

A

Slater et al (2010)- Suggests other-race faces are represented through categorical perception (put into a category with lots of faces they find difficult to distinguish)

85
Q

How are same and other race faces distributed in the hypothetical face space

A

Slater et al (2010) same and other-race faces occupy different locations in the face space- same-race representations contain subordinate info about individual identity, while other-race representations remain at the summary category level with no exemplar-individuation info

86
Q

Study suggesting flexibility of ORE after 1st year of life

A

Korean adults adopted by French families between the ages of 3-9 were better to identify Caucasian faces than Asian faces (Sangrigoli et al, 2005)

87
Q

Study suggesting the other species effect is reversible

A

Adults who specialise in species (eg birdwatchers) become expert at distinguishing between different species and individuating individuals (Diamond and Carey, 1986)

88
Q

What is a neurophysiological explanation for the flexibility of face-processing in childhood

A

Synaptic pruning following the exuberant synaptogenesis of early childhoos is gradual and not complete until late childhood, leaving some dormant connections ready to be reactivated (Scott et al, 2007)

89
Q

What is the subcortical face route

A

Face detection seems to be supported by a subcortical route, involving the main structures superior colliculus, pulvinar and amygdala (Johnson, 2005)

90
Q

Clinical evidence of a separate subcortical face detection route and cortical face identification route

A

Patients with prosopagnosia resulting from cortical damage can detect the presence of faces and certain expressions, but can’t identify faces

91
Q

What is the speed of subcortical face route vs cortical face processing

A

‘Fast pathway’ components have much shorter latencies (<100ms) than those associated with cortical face processing
A face-selective response can occur before activation of V1, suggesting fast face-processing originates in the subcortical route (Johnson, 2005)

92
Q

How are higher spatial frequencies processed

A

Cortical route

Facial details eg expression related wrinkles are carried to corticoventral visual stream

93
Q

How are lower spatial frequencies processed

A

Subcortical route

General configuration of facial elements are carried to superior colliculus and pulvinar

94
Q

How does the processing of high/low spatial frequencies differ

A

HSF - slow response, important for encoding identifying faces
LSF- fast response, suited to detecting peripheral stimuli or those indicating danger

95
Q

What does spatial frequency describe

A

The period distributinos of light and dark in an image

96
Q

What facial features do low and high spatial frequency correspond to

A

LSF- global shape

HSF- sharp edges and fine details

97
Q

What suggests the subcortical route can modulate cortical activity before/during cortical processing

A

fMRI studies- degree of activation of subcortical route structures correlates with activation in relevant cortical regions during face processing
Amygdala activation associated with modulation of cognitive processes eg attention
(Johnson, 2005)

98
Q

What type of face stimuli activate amygdala?

A

Important for recognising emotions from faces (Adolphs and Trandl)
Helps process info about eye region- perceiving direct gaze increases the correlation between amygdala activity and in cortical face areas

99
Q

What is the function of the subcortical processing route in developing face-processing ability

A

Serves to bias the visual input to developing cortical circuits to ensure the development of a speciialization for faces (Johnson, 2005)

100
Q

Possible explanatinos for infant ‘top heavy pattern’ bias?

A

Domain general biases eg putative upper visual field bias
However, there seems to be an interdependency between the borders of the stimulus and the elements within it, suggesting some complexity (Johnson, 2005)

101
Q

What is the differential availability of the cortical and subcortical route in newborns

A

Visual cortical areas are relatively immature in newborns, while structures of the subcortical route are more developed so are more likely to influence visually guided behaviour

102
Q

Study supporting different areas of the visual field feeding into different routes

A

When newborns wore eyepatches so stimuli were presented to one eye, face-related preference was only observed when stimuli were presented in the temporal visual field (Johnson, 2005)

103
Q

Which areas of the visual field feed into the subcortical vs cortical route

A

Stimuli in nasal field feed into cortical route, stimuli in temporal field feed into subcortical route (Simion et al, 1995)

104
Q

How does the subcortical route help build the social brain network

A

Can enhance the activity of relevant cortical regions eg FFA- its projection pattern to the cortex may determine which cortical regions are incorporated into the social brain during development (Johnson, 2005)

105
Q

How can the subcortical pathway help create specific cortical areas for face processing

A

If the subcortical pathways operate from birth, it could enhance the activity of cortical areas that would otherwise recieve poor input through the cortical visual route- might assist in the recruitment of these cortical areas for face processing and social cognition (Johnson, 2005)

106
Q

Study supporting importance of amygdala of subcortical route in development of adult social brain network

A

Several MRI studies implicate the amygdala in autism, suggesting early disruption of its function can cause atypical development of regions involved in socially salient stimuli (Johnson, 2005)

107
Q

Study supporting importance of info from subcortical route in development in preventing autism

A

Reduced association between LSFs and HSF during cortex development could lead to a specialisation for HSF info- autistic children depend more on HSFs for facial processing, while neurotypical individuals use MSFs and LSFs (Johnson, 2005)

108
Q

Study supporting importance of subcortical route in face processing ability

A

Congenital prosopagnosia (cases lacking apparent damage to cortex) could be explained by early defect in the subcortical route that results in a lack of appropriate cortical specialisation for face processing during development (Johnson, 2005)

109
Q

What do some people suggest is the optimal face stimuli for activating the subcortical route- close viewing range

A

Info associated with the dark of the eye surrounding the white sclera- thus, fearful faces that expose a greater extent of the sclera provide optimal stimli for activating the pathway

110
Q

What do some people suggest is the optimal face stimuli for activating the subcortical route- distance/periphery view

A

LSF info yields dark shadowed areas for the eye sockets surrounded by the illuminated areas of the cheeks, nose and forehead

111
Q

When do infants begin face prototype formation

A

De Haan et al (2001)- 3 months old

112
Q

What face preferences can the LSF subcortical route model explain/ not explain

A

Can explain eyes/no eyes, but not attractive face preference and can’t explain recognition of invariant face features across a change in viewpoint (Pascalis and Kelley, 2009)

113
Q

Study supporting LSF bias in newborn face recognition

A

de Heering et al (2008)- newborn recognition of faces is based on visual info with spatial frequencies between 0/0.5 cycles per degree
Newborns failed to recognise a face when only HSF info was available

114
Q

Fact suggesting that infants use SOME HSF info

A

Fine grained info contained around the eyes required to judge gaze direction is only discernable at 0.5-1.0c/d (HSF) (Pascalis and Kelley, 2009)

115
Q

How active is CONSPEC in adult life (Pascalis and Kelley, 2009)?

A

Is suppressed at 2 months, but endures throughout life as a rudimentary face detector- CONSPEC and the cortical face system are dissociable, but feedback between the two means the two are arguably one integrated system (Pascalis and Kelley, 2009)

116
Q

Pascalis and Kelley (2009)- alternate explanation for prosopagnosia

A

Prosopagnosic patients do not suppress CONSPEC after 2 months, so display the face-tracking behaviour seen in newborns, in the same way lesioned supplementary motor areas causes recovery of the grasping reflex seen in young infants due to the removal of cortical suppression

117
Q

What is the gestational proprioceptive feedback (GPF) model

A

Quinn and Slater (2003)- alternative hypothesis to CONSPEC/CONLEARN
Face representation formed through proprioception in utero elicits attraction to matching configurations, so face-processing system develops postnatally through experience

118
Q

Requirements for gestational proprioceptive feedback (GPF) model- learning capability?

A

Fetus must be capable of learning so proprioceptive info can be utilised to form a meaningful face representation

119
Q

Requirements for gestational proprioceptive feedback (GPF) model- study supporting learning capability of fetus

A

Newborns display a preference for their mother’s voice (Lecaneuet and Schaal, 1996), suggesting learning during gestation is normal

120
Q

Requirements for gestational proprioceptive feedback (GPF) model- crossmodal recognition?

A

Must be able to match a face presented visually with the proprioceptive representation built up in utero, for face representation to become meaningful

121
Q

Requirements for gestational proprioceptive feedback (GPF) model- study supporting crossmodal recognition

A

Sai (2005)- newborns only recognise their mother’s face if postnatal exposure to the mother’s voice-face combination is available, suggesting the mother’s face is learned in conjunction with the mother’s voice

122
Q

Study suggesting newborn face preference is linked to contrast differences between the sclera and iris unique to humans

A

Farroni et al (2005)- contrast reversed stimli (black face with white dots) did not elicit a preference, but could produce greater looking if black dots were added to the centre of the blocks- suggests contrast polarity between eyes/face is necessary for face preference

123
Q

How do studies supporting the infant face preferece as being linked to contrast differences between the sclera and iris argue against GPF model

A

This preference for contrast polarity clearly can’t be learned through proprioceptive feedback, so its unlikely the preference for faces is linked to proprioception alone

124
Q

Criticism of Sugita (2008) study?

A

Findings affected by monkeys being severely developmentally deprived?

125
Q

Can GPF and CONSPEC/CONLEARN be combined?

A

Yes- they can be seen as complementary, converging to describe a highly specialised process functional from the first moments of life

126
Q

What do GPF and CONSPEC/CONLEARN both implicate as the basis of early face preference ability

A

Evolution

127
Q

What is it likely that evolution has provided us with

A

Mechanisms that serve to individuate conspecifics and process info relating to factors like fitness and emotions (Pascalis and Kelley, 2009)

128
Q

Study suggesting face-processing system with common origin in humans and other primate specis

A

Adult face systems of primates share several similarities with humans’- eye scanning, individual recognition, inversion effects (Pascalis et al, 1999)

129
Q

Why have we evolved such advanced face processing abilities

A

Make judgements about familiarity and ingroup/outgruop membership, read an individual’s intentions through analysis of their facial expressions,
assess attractiveness for mate selection to ensure reproductive success

130
Q

Study descriving attractiveness in terms of mate choice is enabled by manifestation of hormones and genetic heterozygosity in the face

A

Females rate males with greater heterozygosity in the gene region responsible for producing a strong immune system as more attractive than homozygous males (Roberts et al, 2005)

131
Q

Study describing how female faces contain covert cues that drive attractiveness preference, maximising reproducive success

A

Ratings of female attractiveness, femininity and general health are positively correlated with levels of oestrogen and progesterone, good predictors of fecundity and reproductive health (Law Smith et al, 2006)

132
Q

Evolution- how can we detect covert cues in faces that drive attractiveness preferences and maximise reproductive success

A

The brain has evolved mechanisms to reliably identify and decode these (Pascalis and Kelley, 2009)

133
Q

How do Pascalis and Kelley, 2009 summarise the face-processing system in newborns

A

A conjunction of evolutionary inheritance, in utero learning and rapid learning after birth- a crude face representation based on the evolution template at birth benefits from a rapid learning system that takes advatnage of crossmodal abilities

134
Q

Study showing difference in holistic processing of faces of same vs other race

A

At 4 months, infants process own and other race faces holistically, while at 8 months, infants no longer process other-race faces holistically (Ferguson et al, 2009)

135
Q

Why are there cultural differences in face scanning patterns

A 
Shaped by sociocultural conventions in social interaction- Western convention of maintaining eye contact during social interaction vs East convention of limiting direct eye contact
These conventions are only learnt for the familiar race class of their environment
136
Q

Study showing the ORE in older infants may be exacerbated by categorisation

A

Older infants may categorise faces as own vs other race, leading to different visual scanning and face-processing- at the level of identity for own-race, at the more global level of race for other-race faces (Ge et al, 2009)

137
Q

Study suggesting top-down influences in cognitiive processing of faces

A

2-6yos show better recognition of 50% own race and 50% other race morphed faces when the faces are depicted as belonging to one’s own race rather than another race (Shutts and Kinzler, 2007)

138
Q

Study showing effect of ORE on racism

A

A reduction in the ORE via training in individuating between other-race faces is associated with a reduction in implicit racial biases (Lebrecht et al, 2009)

Psychology (8 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions