4.5 Article

The role of superior temporal sulcus in the control of irrelevant emotional face processing: A transcranial direct current stimulation study

期刊

NEUROPSYCHOLOGIA
卷 64, 期 -, 页码 124-133

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.09.015

关键词

Emotion; Saccade latency; Saccade curvatures; Superior temporal sulcus; Frontal eye field; Facial expressions; tDCS

资金

  1. Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan [102-2420-H-008-001-MY3, 101-2628-H-008-001-MY4, 101-2811-H-008-014, 99-2410-H-008-022-MY3, 100-2511-S-008-019]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Emotional faces are often salient cues of threats or other important contexts, and may therefore have a large effect on cognitive processes of the visual environment Indeed, many behavioral studies have demonstrated that emotional information can modulate visual attention and eye movements. The aim of the present study was to investigate (1) how irrelevant emotional face distractors affect saccadic behaviors and (2) whether such emotional effects reflect a specific neural mechanism or merely biased selective attention. We combined a visual search paradigm that incorporated manipulation of different types of distractor (fearful faces or scrambled faces) and delivered anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) over the superior temporal sulcus and the frontal eye field to investigate the functional roles of these areas in processing facial expressions and eye movements. Our behavioral data suggest that irrelevant emotional distractors can modulate saccadic behaviors. The tDCS results showed that while rFEF played a more general role in controlling saccadic behavior, rSTS is mainly involved in facial expression processing. Furthermore, rSTS played a critical role in processing facial expressions even when such expressions were not relevant to the task goal, implying that facial expressions and processing may be automatic irrespective of the task goal. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.5
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