2011
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinph.2010.10.004
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Neural responses in the occipital cortex to unrecognizable faces

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

3
29
1

Year Published

2012
2012
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

3
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 22 publications
(33 citation statements)
references
References 44 publications
3
29
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Lesion studies have demonstrated that unconsciously perceived fearful face stimuli produce an amygdala response in the damaged hemifield, including the right fusiform cortex [22,23]. Similarly, our previous study [24] reported that subliminally presented face stimuli elicited an occipital P1 (approximately 120 ms) component, and also demonstrated a trend towards larger P1 amplitude in the subliminal fearful face condition.…”
Section: Introductionsupporting
confidence: 71%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Lesion studies have demonstrated that unconsciously perceived fearful face stimuli produce an amygdala response in the damaged hemifield, including the right fusiform cortex [22,23]. Similarly, our previous study [24] reported that subliminally presented face stimuli elicited an occipital P1 (approximately 120 ms) component, and also demonstrated a trend towards larger P1 amplitude in the subliminal fearful face condition.…”
Section: Introductionsupporting
confidence: 71%
“…We adopted the backward masking paradigm from Mitsudo et al [24]. Each trial began with mask stimuli and a red fixation cross lasting 1000 ms. A prime-face stimulus was displayed for 17 ms, immediately followed by the mask stimulus for 283 ms (SOA was 300 ms) and then a target-face stimulus for 800 ms (see Fig.…”
Section: Affective Subliminal Priming Taskmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Our data are consistent with previous findings on pattern-evoked ERPs, where decreased complexity was associated with decreased P1 magnitude (Oken et al, 1987). Recent research has also found that the P1 is magnified for faces above objects even when these stimuli are presented too quickly to be reportable (Mitsudo, Kamio, Goto, Nakashima, & Tobimatsu, 2011). This finding provides further convergent evidence that the advantage in discriminating information from more iconic images, based on low-level features, is heightened when images are presented at the threshold of detection and would first be observed at the latency of the P1.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Specifically, the C1 component has consistently been reported to occur between ϳ80 and ϳ100 ms (give or take 10 ms) for a large range of stimuli varying in SF bandwidth (i.e., single sinusoidal gratings to various broad-band visual patterns). Furthermore, the broad-band stimuli that have been shown to elicit a C1 component in posterior VEPs have ranged from simple line configurations (alternating in luminance or color contrast) to spatially complex check or checkerboard patterns (also alternating in luminance or color contrast) to human face stimuli (e.g., Baseler and Sutter 1997;Butler et al 2007;Foxe et al 2008;Mitsudo et al 2011;Schechter et al 2005). Granted, Vassilev and colleagues (2002) have shown the C1 to be lagged by as much as 50 ms from the typical PSOT range for high-SF gratings, but that was only true when those stimuli were very low in Michelson contrast (ϳ5 to 15%).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%