4.7 Article

N170 changes reflect competition between faces and identifiable characters during early visual processing

期刊

NEUROIMAGE
卷 110, 期 -, 页码 32-38

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.01.047

关键词

N170; Identifiable; Xiaozhuan font characters; Faces; Competition

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31371033, 31170984, 91132704]
  2. National Basic Research Program of China [2011CB711000, 2014CB744600]
  3. National Key Laboratory of Human Factors Engineering [HF2012-K-03]
  4. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [2012CXQT01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

According to the neuronal recycling hypothesis, brain circuits can gain new functions through cultural learning, which are distinct from their evolutionarily established functions, creating competition between processes such as facial and identifiable character processing. In the present study, event-related potential (ERP) recording was used to examine electrophysiological correlates of identification levels of Chinese characters as well as the competition between facial and Chinese character processing after the characters were learnt. Twenty volunteers performed a lateralized face detection task, and N170 responses were recorded when the participants viewed only Chinese characters (identifiable or unidentifiable in Xiaozhuan font), or Chinese characters and faces concurrently. Viewing identifiable Chinese characters bilaterally elicited larger N170 amplitudes than viewing unidentifiable ones. N170 amplitudes in response to faces bilaterally declined when identifiable Chinese characters and faces were viewed concurrently as compared to viewing unidentifiable Chinese characters and faces concurrently. These results indicate that the N170 component is modulated by the observer's identification level of Chinese characters, and that identifiable Chinese characters compete with faces during early visual processing. (C) 2015 Published by Elsevier Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据