Face recognition under ambiguous visual stimulation: fMRI correlates of “encoding styles”

Object categorization during ambiguous sensory stimulation generally depends on the activity of extrastriate sensory areas as well as top‐down information. Both reflect internal representations of prototypical object knowledge against which incoming sensory information is compared. However, besides these general mechanisms, individuals might differ in their readiness to impose internal representations onto incoming ambiguous information. These individual differences might be based on what was referred to as “Schema Instantiation Threshold” (SIT; Lewicki et al. [ 1992 ]: Am Pshycol 47:796–801), defining a continuum from very rapid (low threshold) to a rather controlled application of internal representations (high threshold). We collected fMRI scans while subjects with low SIT (“internal encoders”) and subjects with high SIT (“external encoders”) made gender categorizations of ambiguous facial images. Internal encoders made faster gender decisions during high sensory ambiguity, showed higher fusiform activity, and had faster BOLD responses in the fusiform (FFA) and occipital face area (OFA) indicating a faster and stronger application of face‐gender representations due to a low SIT threshold. External encoders made slower gender decisions and showed increased medial frontal activity, indicating a more controlled strategy during gender categorizations and increased decisional uncertainties. Internal encoders showed higher functional connectivity of the orbito‐frontal cortex (OFC) to seed activity in the FFA which might indicate both more readily generated predictive classificatory guesses and the subjective impressions of accurate classifications. Taken together, an “internal encoding style” is characterized by the fast, unsupervised and unverified application of primary object representations, whereas the opposite seems evident for subjects with an “external encoding style”. Hum Brain Mapp, 2010. © 2010 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

[1]  M. Bar,et al.  Magnocellular Projections as the Trigger of Top-Down Facilitation in Recognition , 2007, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[2]  David C. Van Essen,et al.  Application of Information Technology: An Integrated Software Suite for Surface-based Analyses of Cerebral Cortex , 2001, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[3]  O. Hikosaka,et al.  Switching from automatic to controlled action by monkey medial frontal cortex , 2007, Nature Neuroscience.

[4]  M. Mesulam Representation, inference, and transcendent encoding in neurocognitive networks of the human brain , 2008, Annals of neurology.

[5]  Nancy Kanwisher,et al.  fMRI evidence for objects as the units of attentional selection , 1999, Nature.

[6]  N. Kanwisher,et al.  The Fusiform Face Area: A Module in Human Extrastriate Cortex Specialized for Face Perception , 1997, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[7]  M. Bar,et al.  Top-down predictions in the cognitive brain , 2007, Brain and Cognition.

[8]  N. Cohen,et al.  Prefrontal regions play a predominant role in imposing an attentional 'set': evidence from fMRI. , 2000, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[9]  G. Westbrook,et al.  Disynaptic Amplification of Metabotropic Glutamate Receptor 1 Responses in the Olfactory Bulb , 2007, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[10]  Jie Tian,et al.  Detecting faces in pure noise images: a functional MRI study on top-down perception , 2008, Neuroreport.

[11]  P. Lewicki Internal and External Encoding Style and Social Motivation Page 1 Internal and External Encoding Style and Social Motivation , 2003 .

[12]  P. Lewicki,et al.  Nonconscious acquisition of information. , 1992, The American psychologist.

[13]  J. Hirsch,et al.  A Neural Representation of Categorization Uncertainty in the Human Brain , 2006, Neuron.

[14]  C. Summerfield,et al.  Expectation (and attention) in visual cognition , 2009, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[15]  A. Treves,et al.  Converging Neuronal Activity in Inferior Temporal Cortex during the Classification of Morphed Stimuli , 2008, Cerebral cortex.

[16]  M. Tarr,et al.  The Fusiform Face Area is Part of a Network that Processes Faces at the Individual Level , 2000, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[17]  Bruno Rossion,et al.  The roles of “face” and “non-face” areas during individual face perception: Evidence by fMRI adaptation in a brain-damaged prosopagnosic patient , 2008, NeuroImage.

[18]  C. Summerfield,et al.  A Neural Representation of Prior Information during Perceptual Inference , 2008, Neuron.

[19]  M. Bar,et al.  Top-down facilitation of visual object recognition: object-based and context-based contributions. , 2006, Progress in brain research.

[20]  Ravi S. Menon,et al.  Spatial and temporal limits in cognitive neuroimaging with fMRI , 1999, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[21]  Kenneth F. Valyear,et al.  The fusiform face area is not sufficient for face recognition: Evidence from a patient with dense prosopagnosia and no occipital face area , 2006, Neuropsychologia.

[22]  Pejman Sehatpour,et al.  Spatiotemporal dynamics of human object recognition processing: An integrated high-density electrical mapping and functional imaging study of “closure” processes , 2006, NeuroImage.

[23]  G. McCarthy,et al.  Decisions under Uncertainty: Probabilistic Context Influences Activation of Prefrontal and Parietal Cortices , 2005, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[24]  Tom Johnstone,et al.  Motion correction and the use of motion covariates in multiple‐subject fMRI analysis , 2006, Human brain mapping.

[25]  M. Linden,et al.  A French adaptation of the internal and external encoding style questionnaire and its relationships with impulsivity , 2009 .

[26]  N. Kanwisher,et al.  Mental Imagery of Faces and Places Activates Corresponding Stimulus-Specific Brain Regions , 2000, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[27]  M. Seghier,et al.  A network of occipito-temporal face-sensitive areas besides the right middle fusiform gyrus is necessary for normal face processing. , 2003, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[28]  H. Critchley,et al.  A common role of insula in feelings, empathy and uncertainty , 2009, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[29]  K. R. Ridderinkhof,et al.  The Role of the Medial Frontal Cortex in Cognitive Control , 2004, Science.

[30]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Psychophysiological and Modulatory Interactions in Neuroimaging , 1997, NeuroImage.

[31]  Jimin Liang,et al.  A distributed neural system for top-down face processing , 2009, Neuroscience Letters.

[32]  Philipp Sterzer,et al.  A neural basis for inference in perceptual ambiguity , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[33]  Yan Liu,et al.  Modulation of neural responses in inferotemporal cortex during the interpretation of ambiguous photographs , 2008, The European journal of neuroscience.

[34]  N. Kanwisher,et al.  The fusiform face area subserves face perception, not generic within-category identification , 2004, Nature Neuroscience.

[35]  S. Fiske Social cognition and social perception. , 1993, Annual review of psychology.

[36]  A. G. Goldstein,et al.  Memory for Faces and Schema Theory , 1980 .

[37]  Tobias Egner,et al.  Mistaking a house for a face: neural correlates of misperception in healthy humans. , 2006, Cerebral cortex.

[38]  Jennifer A. Mangels,et al.  Predictive Codes for Forthcoming Perception in the Frontal Cortex , 2006, Science.

[39]  P. Lewicki Social Motivation: Internal and External Encoding Style and Social Motivation , 2004 .

[40]  Doris Y. Tsao,et al.  A Cortical Region Consisting Entirely of Face-Selective Cells , 2006, Science.

[41]  Mark H. Johnson Subcortical face processing , 2005, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[42]  R. C. Oldfield The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. , 1971, Neuropsychologia.