Brain events related to normal and moderately scrambled faces

Effect of configural distortion on a face-related ERP evoked by random dots blinking

“…Even if the spatial relation between the facial contour and features was intact, the configural distortion may engage additional analytic processing of face perception in the IT area. However, the amplitudes at T5 and T6 electrodes were larger for Inverted and Scrambled than for Upright, although there were no significant differences among Upright, Inverted and Scrambled, different from previous N170 studies (George et al 1996;Rossion et al 2003). Therefore, we considered that amplitude differences among Upright, Inverted and Scrambled conditions were weak compared with previous ERPs, probably because of a latency jitter between trials and/or subjects, although this cannot be confirmed from the present study.…”

“…In previous ERP studies, the peak latency of N170 was significantly longer for configural distortions [inverted faces (Bentin et al 1996;Honda et al 2007;Itier and Taylor 2004a;Itier et al 2006;Sagiv and Bentin 2001;Watanabe et al 2003Watanabe et al , 2005, Thatcherized faces (Carbon et al 2005), and scrambled faces (George et al 1996)] than for upright faces. In addition, Latinus and Taylor (2006) found that photographic and schematic faces evoked a similar N170 when the upright face was presented, but the N170 was increased in latency when the inverted face was presented.…”

“…In previous studies using inverted faces (Bentin et al 1996;Honda et al 2007;Itier and Taylor 2004a;Itier et al 2006;Latinus and Taylor 2006;Sagiv and Bentin 2001;Watanabe et al 2003Watanabe et al , 2005, faces with scrambled features (George et al 1996;Latinus and Taylor 2006), and individual components such as the eyes and nose Taylor 2004a, Itier et al 2006;Shibata et al 2002;Watanabe et al 1999a), the N170 was longer in latency for inverted faces than for upright faces, regardless of the same low-level properties, such as luminance. These results indicate that N170 is related to differences in higher-level processing rather than changes in luminance and that its latency is affected by whether a subject easily and quickly detects a stimulus as a whole face or not.…”

“…For example, a schematic drawing consisting of a circle, two dots, and a straight line is recognized as a face, although no individual component of the drawing is part of a real face. Since Bruce and Young (1986) proposed the ''face recognition model'', there have been many studies of face perception using neuroimaging and electrophysiological methods (e.g., Bentin et al 1996;George et al 1996;Haxby et al 1996Haxby et al , 1999Honda et al 2007;Itier and Taylor 2004a;Itier et al 2006;Kanwisher et al 1998;Latinus and Taylor 2006;Miki et al 2007;Rossion and Jacques 2008;Sagiv and Bentin 2001;Shibata et al 2002;Watanabe et al 1999bWatanabe et al , 2002Watanabe et al , 2003Watanabe et al , 2005. In studies of event-related potential (ERP) using averaging electroencephalography (EEG) (e.g., Bentin et al 1996;George et al 1996), static human faces evoked a negative potential in the bilateral occipito-temporal areas peaking at around 170 ms, termed N170, which is considered to be sensitive to faces.…”

Effects of symbol type and numerical distance on the human event-related potential

“…Alternatively, several investigators have argued that the N170 and VPP might reflect two different brain processes (Bötzel, Schulze, & Stodieck, 1995;Bentin, Allison, Puce, Perez, & McCarthy, 1996;Eimer, 2000;George, Evans, Fiori, Davidoff, & Renault, 1996). The data from the developmental ERP studies demonstrated that the N170 had a different developmental pattern from that of the VPP.…”