4.7 Article

A neural marker of the human face identity familiarity effect

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 13, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-40852-9

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Adults are better at associating different views of a familiar face compared to an unfamiliar face. However, there is a lack of a consistent neural index for this behavioral face identity familiarity effect (FIFE) in non-human primate species. This study provides a neural FIFE index that is measured implicitly and with one fixation per face. The findings show that the neural response to familiar faces is 3.4 times larger than unfamiliar faces.
Human adults associate different views of an identity much better for familiar than for unfamiliar faces. However, a robust and consistent neural index of this behavioral face identity familiarity effect (FIFE)-not found in non-human primate species-is lacking. Here we provide such a neural FIFE index, measured implicitly and with one fixation per face. Fourteen participants viewed 70 s stimulation sequences of a large set (n = 40) of widely variable natural images of a face identity at a rate of 6 images/second (6 Hz). Different face identities appeared every 5th image (1.2 Hz). In a sequence, face images were either familiar (i.e., famous) or unfamiliar, participants performing a non-periodic task unrelated to face recognition. The face identity recognition response identified at 1.2 Hz over occipital-temporal regions in the frequency-domain electroencephalogram was 3.4 times larger for familiar than unfamiliar faces. The neural response to familiar faces-which emerged at about 180 ms following face onset-was significant in each individual but a case of prosopdysgnosia. Besides potential clinical and forensic applications to implicitly measure one's knowledge of a face identity, these findings open new perspectives to clarify the neurofunctional source of the FIFE and understand the nature of human face identity recognition.

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