| Literature DB >> 24133426 |
Yoshi-Taka Matsuda1, Tomomi Fujimura, Kentaro Katahira, Masato Okada, Kenichi Ueno, Kang Cheng, Kazuo Okanoya.
Abstract
OUR UNDERSTANDING OF FACIAL EMOTION PERCEPTION HAS BEEN DOMINATED BY TWO SEEMINGLY OPPOSING THEORIES: the categorical and dimensional theories. However, we have recently demonstrated that hybrid processing involving both categorical and dimensional perception can be induced in an implicit manner (Fujimura etal., 2012). The underlying neural mechanisms of this hybrid processing remain unknown. In this study, we tested the hypothesis that separate neural loci might intrinsically encode categorical and dimensional processing functions that serve as a basis for hybrid processing. We used functional magnetic resonance imaging to measure neural correlates while subjects passively viewed emotional faces and performed tasks that were unrelated to facial emotion processing. Activity in the right fusiform face area (FFA) increased in response to psychologically obvious emotions and decreased in response to ambiguous expressions, demonstrating the role of the FFA in categorical processing. The amygdala, insula and medial prefrontal cortex exhibited evidence of dimensional (linear) processing that correlated with physical changes in the emotional face stimuli. The occipital face area and superior temporal sulcus did not respond to these changes in the presented stimuli. Our results indicated that distinct neural loci process the physical and psychological aspects of facial emotion perception in a region-specific and implicit manner.Entities:
Keywords: categorical processes; fMRI; facial expressions; implicit; individual differences
Year: 2013 PMID: 24133426 PMCID: PMC3783839 DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00551
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Hum Neurosci ISSN: 1662-5161 Impact factor: 3.169
FIGURE 4Behavioral results for the identification task. (A) The experimental design for the identification task. Subjects were asked to identify a depicted facial expression by choosing between the two emotions at the endpoints of the continuum to which the depiction belonged (i.e., fear vs. happiness, or disgust vs. anger). (B) The identification rates for the happiness-fear continuum. These rates indicate the frequencies at which happiness and fear were identified for the morphed faces depicted in Figure . (C) The identification rates for the anger–disgust continuum. These rates indicate the frequencies at which anger or disgust were identified for each of the morphed faces depicted in Figure (as indicated by the labels along the x-axis).
FIGURE 6Functional magnetic resonance imaging results in the valence dimension. The x-values represent morphed faces on the happiness - fear continuum depicted in Figure , ranging from “1” = “0% happiness” to “9” = “100% happiness.” The y-values represent the BOLD signals [with arbitrary units (a.u.)] obtained from each ROI. Two graphs are provided for each ROI to indicate the results from the stimulus-based and perception-based analyses; in the latter analysis, each individual’s fMRI data are realigned in accordance with the individual’s behavioral data with respect to category boundaries (Table ). The graphs in green squares represent U-shaped or categorical processing that differs from linear or constant processing. Graphs in red squares represent dimensional (linear) processing with statistically significant correlations after the subject-wise validation (Table ). Graphs in gray squares represent constant processing without statistically significant correlations. Error bars denote SEM. R: the group-wise correlation coefficient. p (Valid.): the probability after the subject-wise validation (Table ). (A) The right fusiform face area (FFA); (B) the left insula; (C) the left amygdala; (D) the mPFC; (E) the right OFA; and (F) the posterior STS (pSTS) in the right hemisphere.
Individual category boundaries for each subject.
| Subject | Category boundary (1–9) | |
|---|---|---|
| Valence dimension | Arousal dimension | |
| (happiness–fear continuum) | (anger–disgust continuum) | |
| ID 1 | 5 | 5 |
| ID 2 | 5 | 6 |
| ID 3 | 4 | 5 |
| ID 4 | 5 | 6 |
| ID 5 | 6 | 6 |
| ID 6 | 5 | 5 |
| ID 7 | 5 | 6 |
| ID 8 | 5 | 6 |
| ID 9 | 5 | 5 |
| ID 10 | 6 | 6 |
| ID 11 | 5 | 6 |
| ID 121 | 5 | 6 |
| ID 13 | 5 | 5 |
| ID 14 | 6 | 6 |
| ID 15 | 6 | 6 |
| ID 16 | 5 | 5 |
| ID 17 | 6 | 5 |
| ID 18 | 6 | 6 |
| ID 19 | 6 | 6 |
| ID 20 | 6 | 6 |
| ID 21 | 5 | 6 |
| ID 22 | 8 | 5 |
The ROIs defined by the functional localizer task of facial emotion perception.
| Region-of-interest | Talairach coordinates | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FFA (R) | 4.82 ± 0.31 | 41 ± 7 | -50 ± 9 | -18 ± 6 |
| OFA (R) | 5.13 ± 0.47 | 44 ± 8 | -65 ± 11 | -11 ± 8 |
| Amygdala (L) | 4.47 ± 0.14 | -25 ± 6 | -2 ± 2 | -12 ± 4 |
| Insula (L) | 4.86 ± 0.28 | -31 ± 6 | 6 ± 8 | -9 ± 7 |
| mPFC | 5.10 ± 0.41 | -2 ± 2 | 55 ± 10 | 18 ± 8 |
| pSTS (R) | 5.51 ± 0.36 | 40 ± 8 | -50 ± 11 | 3 ± 5 |
Analyses of dimensional (linear) processing in each ROI, after subject-wise validation.
| ROI | Valence dimension | Arousal dimension | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stimulus-based | Perception-based | Stimulus-based | Perception-based | |||||||||
| Ave. | Ave. | Ave. | Ave. | |||||||||
| FFA (R) | -0.18 | -2.03 | 0.06 | -0.11 | -0.93 | 0.36 | 0.10 | 1.68 | 0.11 | 0.13 | 2.08 | <0.05* |
| Insula (L) | -0.15 | -2.09 | <0.05* | -0.13 | -1.22 | 0.24 | 0.07 | 0.99 | 0.33 | 0.18 | 2.76 | <0.05* |
| Amygdala (L) | -0.14 | -2.11 | <0.05* | -0.10 | -1.26 | 0.22 | 0.06 | 0.51 | 0.62 | 0.08 | 0.77 | 0.45 |
| mPFC | 0.19 | 3.18 | <0.01** | 0.23 | 3.89 | <0.001*** | -0.03 | -0.47 | 0.65 | -0.01 | -0.07 | 0.95 |
| OFA (R) | -0.06 | -0.79 | 0.44 | -0.02 | -0.21 | 0.84 | 0.12 | 1.58 | 0.13 | 0.10 | 1.30 | 0.21 |
| pSTS (R) | 0.02 | 0.41 | 0.68 | 0.01 | 0.11 | 0.92 | -0.08 | -0.84 | 0.41 | -0.07 | -0.77 | 0.45 |