The contribution of the fusiform gyrus and superior temporal sulcus in processing facial attractiveness: Neuropsychological and neuroimaging evidence

Abstract

Current cognitive models suggest that the processing of dynamic facial attributes, including social signals such as gaze direction and facial expression, involves the superior temporal sulcus, whereas the processing of invariant facial structure such as the individuals' identity involves the fusiform face area. Where facial attractiveness, a social signal that may emerge from invariant facial structure, is processed within this dual-route model of face perception is uncertain. Here, we present two studies. First, we investigated the explicit judgments of facial attractiveness and attractiveness-motivated behaviour in patients with acquired prosopagnosia, a deficit in familiar face recognition usually associated with damage to medial occipitotemporal cortex. We found that both abilities were impaired in these patients, with some weak residual ability for attractiveness judgments found only in those patients with unilateral right occipitotemporal or bilateral anterior temporal lesions. Importantly, deficits in attractiveness perception correlated with the severity of the face recognition deficit. Second, we performed a functional magnetic resonance imaging study in healthy subjects that included an implicit and explicit processing of facial attractiveness. We found increased neural activity when explicitly judging facial attractiveness within a number of cortical regions including the fusiform face area, but not the superior temporal sulcus, indicating a potential contribution of the fusiform face area to this judgment. Thus, converging neuropsychological and neuroimaging evidence points to a critical role of the inferior occipitotemporal cortex in the processing of facial attractiveness.

Neural and behavioral responses to attractiveness in adult and infant faces

“…While two studies found a positive relationship between IOG activation and facial attractiveness (Kranz & Ishai, 2006;Vartanian, Goel, Lam, Fisher, & Granic, 2013), another found a negative relationship (O'Doherty et al, 2003). Similarly, Kranz and Ishai (2006) found evidence that activation in the STS was modulated by facial attractiveness while Iaria et al (2008) found that STS activation did not differ for attractive and unattractive faces.…”

“…The thalamus and cingulate cortex also tend to respond more strongly to attractive faces than unattractive faces (Cloutier et al, 2008;Kawataba et al, 2004;Kranz & Ishai, 2006;Liang et al, 2010;O'Doherty et al, 2003;Pochon et al, 2008;Tsukiura et al, 2011a;Winston et al, 2007), although there is some evidence that the cingulate may respond in a non-linear fashion (Tsukuira et al, 2011a). Similarly, the amygdala appears to respond non-linearly to facial attractiveness, with greater activation in response to highly attractive or highly unattractive faces compared to average faces (Liang et al, 2010;Mende-Siedlecki et al, 2012;Winston et al, 2007), although other studies have observed a positive linear response to attractiveness in this region (Aharon et al, 2001;Iaria et al, 2008;Kranz & Ishai, 2006). That brain regions associated with reward respond to facial attractiveness suggests physical attractiveness may hold incentive salience (Berridge & Robinson, 2003) and influence behavior.…”

“…While an early study using PET revealed greater activity in the left medial frontal cortex and left insular and orbitofrontal cortices for attractive as compared to unattractive faces (Nakamura et al, 1998), perhaps the most consistently reported finding is increased activity in the OFC for attractive as compared to unattractive faces (Aharon et al, 2001;Bray & O'Doherty, 2007;Cloutier et al, 2008;Hampshire, Chaudhry, Owen, & Roberts, 2012;Iaria et al, 2008;Ishai, 2007;Kawabata & Zeki, 2004;Kim, Adolphs, O'Doherty, & Shimo, 2007;Kranz & Ishai, 2006;Liang, Zebrowitz, & Zhang, 2010;Nakamura et al, 1998;O'Doherty et al, 2003;Smith et al, 2010;Tsukiura & Cabeza, 2011a, 2011bWinston et al, 2007;Zaki, Schirmer, & Mitchell, 2011). The OFC is thought to index ) and the NAcc (Aharon et al, 2001;Bray et al, 2007;Cloutier et al, 2008;Kim et al, 2007;Liang et al, 2010;Smith et al, 2010' Zaki et al, 2011.…”

“…the interaction between attractiveness and sex of face) than did aesthetic ratings, leading to the conclusion that this key-press task may be an behavioral measure of the reward value of "beauty". Further support for this link between key-pressing behavior and incentive salience comes from work with prosopagnosics (Iaria et al, 2008) and individuals suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (Elman et al, 2005). These individuals either suffer from perceptual deficits or anhedonia, both of which should impact the incentive salience of facial attractiveness.…”

Haemodynamic Brain Response to Visual Sexual Stimuli is Different between Homosexual and Heterosexual Men

“…38 A converging neuropsychological and neuroimaging study suggested that the inferior temporal cortex, including the fusiform area, contributes to the perception of facial attractiveness by processing information that may be a relevant output for higher cognitive processing of attractiveness. 39 The GCS was considered an aversive stimulus by heterosexual men and induced cognitive and emotional processing of disgust. Activation in the precuneus has been found to be closely related to ratings of fear.…”