4.7 Article

Transcranial magnetic stimulation disrupts the perception and embodiment of facial expressions

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE
卷 28, 期 36, 页码 8929-8933

出版社

SOC NEUROSCIENCE
DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1450-08.2008

关键词

face perception; embodied cognition; emotion; transcranial magnetic stimulation; somatosensory cortex; occipital face area

资金

  1. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BB/F022875/1]
  2. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BB/F022875/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  3. BBSRC [BB/F022875/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Theories of embodied cognition propose that recognizing facial expressions requires visual processing followed by simulation of the somatovisceral responses associated with the perceived expression. To test this proposal, we targeted the right occipital face area (rOFA) and the face region of right somatosensory cortex (rSC) with repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) while participants discriminated facial expressions. rTMS selectively impaired discrimination of facial expressions at both sites but had no effect on a matched face identity task. Site specificity within the rSC was demonstrated by targeting rTMS at the face and finger regions while participants performed the expression discrimination task. rTMS targeted at the face region impaired task performance relative to rTMS targeted at the finger region. To establish the temporal course of visual and somatosensory contributions to expression processing, double-pulse TMS was delivered at different times to rOFA and rSC during expression discrimination. Accuracy dropped when pulses were delivered at 60-100 ms at rOFA and at 100-140 and 130-170 ms at rSC. These sequential impairments at rOFA and rSC support embodied accounts of expression recognition as well as hierarchical models of face processing. The results also demonstrate that nonvisual cortical areas contribute during early stages of expression processing.

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