4.7 Article

The changing landscape of functional brain networks for face processing in typical development

期刊

NEUROIMAGE
卷 63, 期 3, 页码 1223-1236

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.08.021

关键词

Face processing; Development; Functional connectivity; Social neuroscience

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [R01-MH063817, R01-HD052724, R01-HD042451, F31-MH067461, P20-RR015592, P50-DA005312]
  2. National Science Foundation [BCS-0224240]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Greater expertise for faces in adults than in children may be achieved by a dynamic interplay of functional segregation and integration of brain regions throughout development The present study examined developmental changes in face network functional connectivity in children (5-12 years) and adults (18-43 years) during face-viewing using a graph-theory approach. A face-specific developmental change involved connectivity of the right occipital face area. During childhood, this node increased in strength and within-module clustering based on positive connectivity. These changes reflect an important role of the ROFA in segregation of function during childhood. In addition, strength and diversity of connections within a module that included primary visual areas (left and right calcarine) and limbic regions (left hippocampus and right inferior orbitofrontal cortex) increased from childhood to adulthood, reflecting increased visuo-limbic integration. This integration was pronounced for faces but also emerged for natural objects. Taken together, the primary face-specific developmental changes involved segregation of a posterior visual module during childhood, possibly implicated in early stage perceptual face processing, and greater integration of visuo-limbic connections from childhood to adulthood, which may reflect processing related to development of perceptual expertise for individuation of faces and other visually homogenous categories. (C) 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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