Self-recognition and the right hemisphere

Keenan, Julian Paul; Nelson, Aaron P.; O’Connor, Margaret; Pascual‐Leone, Álvaro

doi:10.1038/35053167

Cited by 304 publications

(180 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

156

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…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%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Section: Face Recognitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

show abstract

“…Recent years have seen a renewed interest of neurobiological research into the self and how it is grounded in mechanisms of bodily perception and cognition [Gallagher, 2000;Jeannerod, 2003;Vogeley and Fink, 2003]. The human body (of others as well as one's own) provides a particularly rich source of perceptual information and recent neuroimaging research has unraveled several brain mechanisms involved in the visual perception and recognition of human bodies [Allison et al, 2000;Downing et al, 2001;Thierry et al, 2006;Urgesi et al, 2007], either of one's own or of others [Ehrsson et al, 2004;Keenan et al, 2001;Sugiura et al, 2005]. These studies revealed the existence of an extended cortical network encompassing extrastriate areas, temporoparietal and parietal cortex, as well as medial and lateral frontal regions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The timing of temporoparietal and frontal activations during mental own body transformations from different visuospatial perspectives

Schwabe¹,

Lenggenhager²,

Blanke³

2009

Human Brain Mapping

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The perspective from where the world is perceived is an important aspect of the bodily self and may break down in neurological conditions such as out-of-body experiences (OBEs). These striking disturbances are characterized by disembodiment, an external perspective and have been observed after temporoparietal damage. Using mental own body imagery, recent neuroimaging work has linked perspectival changes to the temporoparietal cortex. Because the disembodied perspective during OBEs is elevated in the majority of cases, we tested whether an elevated perspective will interfere with such temporoparietal mechanisms mental own body imagery. We designed stimuli of life-sized humans rotated around the vertical axis and rendered as if viewed from three different perspectives: elevated, lowered, and normal. Reaction times (RTs) in an own body transformation task, but not the control condition, were dependent on the rotation angle. Furthermore, RTs were shorter for the elevated as compared with the normal or lowered perspective. Using high-density EEG and evoked potential (EP) mapping, we found a bilateral temporoparietal and frontal activation at %330-420 ms after stimulus onset that was dependent on the rotation angle, but not on the perspective. This activation was also found in response-locked EPs. In the time period %210-330 ms we found a temporally distinct posterior temporal activation with its duration being dependent on the perspective, but not the rotation angle. Collectively, the present findings suggest that temporoparietal and frontal as well as posterior temporal activations and their timing are crucial neuronal correlates of the bodily self as studied by mental imagery.

show abstract

“…Early imaging studies focused on stereotypes (Hart et al, 2000;Phelps et al, 2000), self-knowledge (Kelley et al, 2002), and theory of mind (Baron-Cohen et al, 1994;Frith and Frith, 1999); however, work has now extended into several areas of social psychological inquiry including self-serving biases (Blackwood et al, 2003), self-awareness (Gusnard et al, 2001;Keenan et al, 2001;Eisenberger et al, in press), judgment and decision-making (De Quervain et al, 2004;Sanfey et al, 2003), cooperation (Kosfeld et al, 2005;Rilling et al, 2004), selfschemas , person knowledge (Mitchell et al, 2004a), social exclusion (Eisenberger et al, 2003), attitudinal evaluation (Cunningham et al, 2003;Wood et al, 2005), regulation of stereotypes (Amodio et al, 2003;Richeson et al, 2003;Wheeler and Fiske, 2005), expectancy effects Petrovic et al, 2002;Wager et al, 2004), relational cognition (Aron et al, 2005;Iacoboni et al, 2004), empathy (Carr et al, 2003;Singer et al, 2004), and emotional reappraisal (Beauregard et al, 2001;Ochsner et al, 2002). This special issue devoted to social cognitive neuroscience brings new light to these existing themes (Cunningham, Espinet, DeYoung, and Zelazo, this issue; Mitchell, Banaji, and Macrae, this issue; Ochsner et al, this issue; Sander et al, this issue) and tackles areas new to social cognitive neuroscience such as attribution (Harris, Todorov, and Fiske, this issue; Heberlein and Saxe, this issue), attachment (Gillath, Bunge, Shaver, Wendelken, and Mikulincer, this issue), self-esteem (Pruessner et al, this issue), and intention planning …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Principles, processes, and puzzles of social cognition: An introduction for the special issue on social cognitive neuroscience

Lieberman

2005

NeuroImage

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article introduces the special issue of NeuroImage focused on social cognitive neuroscience. Social psychology has a rich history of making sense of the often paradoxical aspects of social cognition and the social world. This article reviews the principles, processes, and puzzles of social cognition and behavior that have been examined by social psychologists for decades. Five principles of social cognition and behavior are reviewed including: (1) the power of the situation over behavior, (2) blindness for situational influences, (3) social perception and self-perception are constructive processes, (4) blindness for the constructed nature of social and self-perception, and (5) self-processes are social. Four processes of social cognition are reviewed including: (1) cognitive architecture; (2) automaticity and control; (3) motivated reasoning; and (4) accessibility, frames, and expectations. Finally, five areas of social cognition that contain enduring puzzles are described including (1) the self, (2) attitudes, (3) reflective social cognition, (4) automatic social cognition, and (5) social motives. In several of the areas of study reviewed, cognitive neuroscience is well positioned to make important contributions to these research traditions either by allowing for new tests of hypotheses or by allowing for unobtrusive measurement of social cognitive processes. D

show abstract

Self-recognition and the right hemisphere

Cited by 304 publications

References 8 publications

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

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

The timing of temporoparietal and frontal activations during mental own body transformations from different visuospatial perspectives

Principles, processes, and puzzles of social cognition: An introduction for the special issue on social cognitive neuroscience

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About