4.7 Article

Potentiated early neural responses to fearful faces are not driven by specific face parts

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 13, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-31752-z

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study investigates the impact of task-irrelevant fearful and neutral faces on event-related potential (ERP) using an ERP-dependent facial decoding technique and a large sample of participants. The results demonstrate that the increased amplitudes of the N170 and EPN components in response to task-irrelevant fearful faces compared to neutral faces are not driven by specific facial regions. Instead, they represent a holistic face processing effect driven by the low-frequency contrast of specific face parts.
Prioritized processing of fearful compared to neutral faces is reflected in increased amplitudes of components of the event-related potential (ERP). It is unknown whether specific face parts drive these modulations. Here, we investigated the contributions of face parts on ERPs to task-irrelevant fearful and neutral faces using an ERP-dependent facial decoding technique and a large sample of participants (N=83). Classical ERP analyses showed typical and robust increases of N170 and EPN amplitudes by fearful relative to neutral faces. Facial decoding further showed that the absolute amplitude of these components, as well as the P1, was driven by the low-frequency contrast of specific face parts. However, the difference between fearful and neutral faces was not driven by any specific face part, as supported by Bayesian statistics. Furthermore, there were no correlations between trait anxiety and main effects or interactions. These results suggest that increased N170 and EPN amplitudes to task-irrelevant fearful compared to neutral faces are not driven by specific facial regions but represent a holistic face processing effect.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available