4.7 Article

Enhanced extrastriate visual response to bandpass spatial frequency filtered fearful faces: Time course and topographic evoked-potentials mapping

期刊

HUMAN BRAIN MAPPING
卷 26, 期 1, 页码 65-79

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/hbm.20130

关键词

fear perception; P1; band-pass spatial frequency filtering; LSF; HSF; temporal segmentation; extrastriate visual cortex

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We compared electrical brain responses to fearful vs. neutral facial expressions in healthy volunteers while they performed an orthogonal gender decision task. Face stimuli either had a broadband spatial-frequency content, or were filtered to create either low spatial-frequency (LSF) or high spatial-frequency (HSF) faces, always overlapped with their complementary SF content in upside-down orientation to preserve the total stimulus energy. We tested the hypothesis that the coarse LSF content of faces might be responsible for an early modulation of event-related potentials (ERPs) to fearful expressions. Consistent with previous findings, we show that broadband images of fearful faces, relative to neutral faces, elicit a higher global field power of approximately 130 ms poststimulus onset, corresponding to an increased P1 component over lateral occipital electrodes, with neural sources located within the extrastriate visual cortex. Bandpass filtering of faces strongly affected the latency and amplitude of ERFs, with a suppression of the normal N170 response for both LSF and HSF faces, irrespective of expression. Critically, we found that LSF information from fearful faces, unlike HSF information, produced a right-lateralized enhancement of the lateral occipital P1, without any change in the scalp topography, relative to unfiltered (broadband) fearful faces. These results demonstrate that an early P1 response to fear expression depends on a visual pathway preferentially tuned to coarse-magnocellular inputs, and can persist unchanged even when the N170 generators are disrupted by SF filtering.

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