Analyses of human object recognition abilities led to the hypothesis that 2 kinds of spatial relation representations are used in human vision. Evidence for the distinction between abstract categorical spatial relation representations and specific coordinate spatial relation representations was provided in 4 experiments. These results indicate that Ss make categorical judgments--on/off, left/right, and above/below--faster when stimuli are initially presented to the left cerebral hemisphere, whereas they make evaluations of distance--in relation to 2 mm, 3 mm, or 1 in. (2.54 cm)--faster when stimuli are initially presented to the right cerebral hemisphere. In addition, there was evidence that categorical representations developed with practice.

Results of 4 sets of neural network simulations support the distinction between categorical and coordinate spatial relations representations: (a) Networks that were split so that different hidden units contributed to each type of judgment performed better than unsplit networks; the reverse was observed when they made 2 coordinate judgments. (b) Both computations were more difficult when finer discriminations were required; this result mirrored findings with human Ss. (c) Networks with large, overlapping "receptive fields" performed the coordinate task better than did networks with small, less overlapping receptive fields, but vice versa for the categorical task; this suggests a possible basis for observed cerebral lateralization of the 2 kinds of processing. (d) The previously observed effect of stimulus contrast on this hemispheric asymmetry could reflect contributions of more neuronal input in high-contrast conditions.

Neural correlates of responses to emotionally valenced olfactory, visual, and auditory stimuli were examined using positron emission tomography. Twelve volunteers were scanned using the water bolus method. For each sensory modality, regional cerebral blood flow (rCBF) during presentation of both pleasant and unpleasant stimuli was compared with that measured during presentation of neutral stimuli. During the emotionally valenced conditions, subjects performed forced-choice pleasant and unpleasant judgments. During the neutral conditions, subjects were asked to select at random one of a two key-press buttons. All stimulations were synchronized with inspiration, using an airflow olfactometer, to present the same number of stimuli for each sensory modality. A no-stimulation control condition was also performed in which no stimulus was presented. For all three sensory modalities, emotionally valenced stimuli led to increased rCBF in the orbitofrontal cortex, the temporal pole, and the superior frontal gyrus, in the left hemisphere. Emotionally valenced olfactory and visual but not auditory stimuli produced additional rCBF increases in the hypothalamus and the subcallosal gyrus. Only emotionally valenced olfactory stimuli induced bilateral rCBF increases in the amygdala. These findings suggest that pleasant and unpleasant emotional judgments recruit the same core network in the left hemisphere, regardless of the sensory modality. This core network is activated in addition to a number of circuits that are specific to individual sensory modalities. Finally, the data suggest a superior potency of emotionally valenced olfactory over visual and auditory stimuli in activating the amygdala.Key words: emotion; hedonic judgment; odor processing; visual processing; auditory processing; PET Everyday, we make numerous judgments about the pleasantness or unpleasantness of external sensory stimuli. Exposure to such stimuli can induce subjective emotional experiences such as pleasure or fear and behavioral responses aimed at engaging or avoiding continued exposure. Neurobehavioral studies in animals have historically implicated structures related to the limbic system in these emotional processes, with a particular emphasis on the amygdala and hypothalamus (LeDoux, 1987(LeDoux, , 1995Davis, 1992;Rolls, 1999). Electrophysiological and lesion studies also indicate that the orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) makes a significant contribution to these processes in animals (Zald and Kim, 1996b;Rolls, 1999).Several recent neuroimaging studies have attempted to delineate the cortical and subcortical regions involved in processing emotionally valenced stimuli in humans. Such studies have examined responses to pleasant and/or unpleasant visual (Cahill et al

The functional anatomy of perceptual and semantic processings for odors was studied using positron emission tomography (PET). The first experiment was a pretest in which 71 normal subjects were asked to rate 185 odorants in terms of intensity, familiarity, hedonicity, and comestibility and to name the odorants. This pretest was necessary to select the most appropriate stimuli for the different cognitive tasks of the second experiment. The second one was a PET experiment in which 15 normal subjects were scanned using the water bolus method to measure regional cerebral blood flow (rCBF) during the performance in three conditions. In the first (perceptual) condition, subjects were asked to judge whether an odor was familiar or not. In the second (semantic) condition, subjects had to decide whether an odor corresponded to a comestible item or not. In the third (detection) condition, subjects had to judge whether the perceived stimulus was made of an odor or was just air. It was hypothetized that the three tasks were hierarchically organized from a superficial detection level to a deep semantic level. Odorants were presented with an air-flow olfactometer, which allowed the stimulations to be synchronized with breathing. Subtraction of activation images obtained between familiarity and control judgments revealed that familiarity judgments were mainly associated with the activity of the right orbito-frontal area, the subcallosal gyrus, the left inferior frontal gyrus, the left superior frontal gyrus, and the anterior cingulate (Brodmann's areas 11, 25, 47, 9, and 32, respectively). The comestibility minus familiarity comparison showed that comestibility judgments selectively activated the primary visual areas. In contrast, a decrease in rCBF was observed in these same visual areas for familiarity judgments and in the orbito-frontal area for comestibility judgments. These results suggest that orbito-frontal and visual regions interact in odor processing in a complementary way, depending on the task requirements.

This article addresses three issues in face processing: First, is face processing primarily accomplished by the right hemisphere, or do both left- and right-hemisphere mechanisms play important roles? Second, are the mechanisms the same as those involved in general visual processing, or are they dedicated to face processing? Third, how can the mechanisms be characterized more precisely in terms of processes such as visual parsing? We explored these issues using the divided visual field methodology in four experiments. Experiments 1 and 2 provided evidence that both left- and right-hemisphere mechanisms are involved in face processing. In Experiment 1, a right-hemisphere advantage was found for both Same and Different trials when Same faces were identical and Different faces differed on all three internal facial features. Experiment 2 replicated the right-hemisphere advantage for Same trials but showed a left-hemisphere advantage for Different trials when one of three facial features differed between the target and the probe faces. Experiment 3 showed that the right-hemisphere advantage obtained with upright faces in Experiment 2 disappeared when the faces were inverted. This result suggests that there are right-hemisphere mechanisms specialized for processing upright faces, although it could not be determined whether these mechanisms are completely face-specific. Experiment 3 also provided evidence that the left-hemisphere mechanisms utilized in face processing tasks are general-purpose visual mechanisms not restricted to particular classes of visual stimuli. In Experiment 4, a left-hemisphere advantage was obtained when the task was to find one facial feature that was the same between the target and the probe faces. We suggest that left-hemisphere advantages shown in face processing are due to the parsing and analysis of the local elements of a face.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract