4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

Why is the fusiform face area recruited for novel categories of expertise? A neurocomputational investigation

期刊

BRAIN RESEARCH
卷 1202, 期 -, 页码 14-24

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.brainres.2007.06.079

关键词

fusiform face area; face processing; visual expertise; computational modeling

资金

  1. NIMH NIH HHS [R01 MH057075, R01 MH057075-04A2, R01 MH057075-03, R01 MH057075-05, R01 MH057075-07, R01 MH057075-06, R01 MH57075] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

What is the role of the Fusiform Face Area (FFA)? Is it specific to face processing, or is it a visual expertise area? The expertise hypothesis is appealing due to a number of studies showing that the FFA is activated by pictures of objects within the subject's domain of expertise (e.g., cars for car experts, birds for birders, etc.), and that activation of the FFA increases as new expertise is acquired in the lab. However, it is incumbent upon the proponents of the expertise hypothesis to explain how it is that an area that is initially specialized for faces becomes recruited for new classes of stimuli. We dub this the visual expertise mystery. One suggested answer to this mystery is that the FFA is used simply because it is a fine discrimination area, but this account has historically lacked a mechanism describing exactly how the FFA would be recruited for novel domains of expertise. in this study, we show that a neurocomputational model trained to perform subordinate-level discrimination within a visually homogeneous class develops transformations that magnify differences between similar objects, in marked contrast to networks trained to simply categorize the objects. This magnification generalizes to novel classes, leading to faster learning of new discriminations. We suggest this is why the FFA is recruited for new expertise. The model predicts that individual FFA neurons will have highly variable responses to stimuli within expertise domains. (C) 2007 Elsevier B.V. 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