Hand response differences in a self-face identification task

Keenan, Julian Paul; Freund, Stefanie; Hamilton, Roy H.; Ganis, Giorgio; Pascual‐Leone, Álvaro

doi:10.1016/s0028-3932(99)00145-1

Cited by 76 publications

(67 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Because of contralateral motor control, this finding was interpreted as reflecting right hemisphere dominance of self-face recognition. This left-hand advantage was demonstrated with another dependent measure using an innovative experimental procedure in which the participants' task was to stop a movie of a morphed face that transitioned between a famous face and self-face, or between a famous face and a co-worker's face, as soon as they thought that the image looked more like self, or the co-worker, than the famous person (Keenan, Freund, Hamilton, Ganis, & Pascual-Leone, 2000;Keenan, Ganis, Freund, & PascualLeone, 2000). In these studies participants stopped the "famous to self" movie sooner when responding with the left hand than when responding with the right hand.…”

Section: The Lateralization Of Visual Self-recognitionmentioning

confidence: 98%

The neural correlates of visual self-recognition

Devue

Brédart

2011

Consciousness and Cognition

163

123

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents a review of studies that were aimed at determining which brain regions are recruited during visual self-recognition, with a particular focus on self-face recognition. A complex bilateral network, involving frontal, parietal and occipital areas, appears to be associated with self-face recognition, with a particularly high implication of the right hemisphere. Results indicate that it remains difficult to determine which specific cognitive operation is reflected by each recruited brain area, in part due to the variability of used control stimuli and experimental tasks. A synthesis of the interpretations provided by previous studies is presented. The relevance of using self-recognition as an indicator of self-awareness is discussed. We argue that a major aim of future research in the field should be to identify more clearly the cognitive operations induced by the perception of the self-face, and search for dissociations between neural correlates and cognitive components.

show abstract

Section: The Lateralization Of Visual Self-recognitionmentioning

confidence: 98%

The neural correlates of visual self-recognition

Devue

Brédart

2011

Consciousness and Cognition

163

123

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The subjects' task was to indicate as quickly as possible which face it was by pressing one of three buttons with their right hand in one condition and left in another (resulting in six conditions-three types of faces times two hands). Results indicated a significant reaction time advantage for the self faces when subjects pressed the button with their left hand, which (2000); Keenan et al (1999Keenan et al ( , 2000Keenan et al ( , 2001Keenan et al ( , 2003; Kircher et al (2000Kircher et al ( , 2001; Turk et al Functional uniqueness/ independence Reed & Farah (1995) Self-reference effect (various authors); Klein et al (2002) De Renzi et al (1987); Hodges & McCarthy (1993) Species specificity Gallup (1970Gallup ( , 1979; Suarez & Gallup (1981) is primarily controlled by the right hemisphere-that is, their reaction times for this condition were significantly faster than their reaction times in any of the other five conditions. In another study, subjects were shown morphed images of their own face and the face of a famous person (Keenan et al, 2000), similar to the design used in Keenan et al's (2003) patient study.…”

Section: Face Recognitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Supramarginal gyrus, superior parietal lobule, precuneus Keenan et al (1999) Hand difference in reaction time for self-face recognition Unspecified right hemisphere Keenan et al (2000) Hand difference in reaction time for self-face recognition Unspecified right hemisphere Keenan et al (2001) Hemispheric difference in self-face recognition Unspecified right hemisphere Platek & Gallup (2002) Hand difference in reaction time for self-face recognition Unspecified right hemisphere Turk et al (2002) Hemispheric difference in self-face recognition in split-brain patient Unspecified left hemisphere Kircher et al (2000Kircher et al ( , 2001 Greater activation for self vs. partner face recognition representations used to discriminate own and other bodies (be these representations separate or integral) are precise. Within clinical neurology, there are many disorders of bodily sensation, action, and awareness (see Goldenberg, 2003, for a review), the most relevant being autotopagnosia and asomatognosia.…”

Section: Anterior Cingulate Gyrus Fusiform Gyrusmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is Self Special? A Critical Review of Evidence From Experimental Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience.

Gillihan¹,

Farah²

2005

Psychological Bulletin

398

304

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Varied research findings have been taken to support the claim that humans' representation of the self is "special," that is, that it emerges from systems that are physically and functionally distinct from those used for more general purpose cognitive processing. The authors evaluate this claim by reviewing the relevant literatures and addressing the criteria for considering a system special, the various operationalizations of self, and how the studies' findings relate to the conclusions drawn. The authors conclude that many of the claims for the special status of self-related processing are premature given the evidence and that the various self-related research programs do not seem to be illuminating a unitary, common system, despite individuals' subjective experience of a unified self.A basic goal of information-processing psychology is to characterize the computational architecture of the mind, that is, to delineate the components of the information-processing system and describe their functions. Within this common framework, theories differ according to how many distinct components are posited and how specialized their functions are. In the case of some kinds of human information processing, claims of extreme specialization have been made. Language, for example, is often said to be a product of systems that are physically and functionally distinct from those used for more general-purpose cognitive processing-in other words, language has been claimed to be special. Evidence for the claim that language is special includes its reliance on a network of perisylvian brain areas that are not needed for nonlinguistic sound recognition or vocalization and its species specificity. Face recognition is also considered special by many because it relies on parts of ventral visual cortex that are not needed for visual recognition of nonface objects and because face representation is more holistic than the representation of other objects.

show abstract

“…Keenan and collaborators (e.g. Keenan et al, 2000a) and Ma and Han Although we are not aware of any previous experiments comparing the ability to learn a rule using the right or left hand in the absence of verbal awareness, there are isolated reports of findings that allow some inferences about left hand motor learning.…”

Section: Left-hand Advantage In the Implicit Detection Of The Rulementioning

confidence: 94%

“…Root et al (2006) employed the above methodology to investigate hemispheric laterality specific to response preparation, and an identical paradigm has been used to make inferences about hemisphere-specific cognitive processing at the perceptual level. For example, Keenan et al (1999;2000a;2000b), and more recently Ma and Han (2010), found a left-hand reaction-time advantage specific to photographs of one's own face compared to the faces of others. From this finding, they deduced right hemisphere superiority for selfface recognition and, by inference, for other aspects of one's own self.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A left-hand superiority for the implicit detection of a rule

Anagnostopoulos

Spiegel

Palmer

et al. 2013

Cortex

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We set out to test the hypothesis of right-hemisphere superiority for the implicit detection of a rule. Forty healthy men provided speeded manual responses to randomly presented digits from 1 to 6 (left hand to 1-3, right hand to 4-6). Red digits on trial n signaled that the response on trial n+1 should be made with one hand, blue digits with the other hand. White digits gave no signal (control trials). Half the participants were told that the stimulus color conveyed a rule that could be exploited to improve performance, the other half were not. After completing the first run, participants' awareness of the presence and nature of the rule was assessed and all were debriefed. Participants then performed a second run with identical stimulus conditions. In Run 1, none of the participants reported being aware of the nature of the rule. Reaction times (RTs) were longer after signal than no-signal trials, but only for the left hand. Participants informed about the presence of a rule tended to have longer RTs, irrespective of hand. In Run 2, RTs were shorter after signal than no-signal trials, and there were no differences between hands. The observed RT effect for the left-hand points to a right-hemisphere superiority for the detection and application of a rule in the absence of verbal awareness. Longer (instead of shorter) RTs in the signal trials are discussed in the framework of interhemispheric inhibition.

show abstract

Hand response differences in a self-face identification task

Cited by 76 publications

References 19 publications

The neural correlates of visual self-recognition

The neural correlates of visual self-recognition

Is Self Special? A Critical Review of Evidence From Experimental Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience.

A left-hand superiority for the implicit detection of a rule

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About