Study your flashcards anywhere!

Download the official Cram app for free >

  • Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
Reading...
Front

How to study your flashcards.

Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key

Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key

H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key

A key: Read text to speech.a key

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/117

Click to flip

117 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
Bodamer 47
people w anomia - same only for faces - prosopagnosia
De Renzi 86
are faces harder?
De Renzi 87
Prosopagnostic patient - could disting dogs, coins, breeds - used colour and featural info?
Bruyer 83
Mr W - recog cows but not faces
Assal 84
MR X could recognt cows or faces
McNeil & Warrington 93
WJ - prosopagnosic, could recog sheep, learn sheep not faces
Young 93
32 ex-servicemen w brain lesions ; face id; fam decision; simultaneous face matching; sequential face matching; expression matching; expression recog
RH lesion
fam face deficit only
RH lesion
unfam faces only deficit
5 LH lesion
expression deficit
Bruce and Young
Valerie - right temp lobe prob - prosopagnosic
Young Hellawell & Dehann 88
DH : forced face to name matching ; associative priming- fam judge RT to name following face prime
FU- PIN = disrupted so only ltd activation but enough to prime

Bauer 84
Prosopags- normal increase in SCR - fam faces - covert recog ok
Ellis & Young 90
Capgras Fregoli & Intermetamorphosis- happen w schizo
Capgras
replaced by imposters
Fregoli
person diguising self
Intermetamorphosis
rapid appearance change - look like someone else; occur through epilepsy
Ellis & Young 90
DD of prosopagnosia (capgras) - no covert, prosopag- no overt
Ellis 97
no SCR to fam faces in capgras
Ellis 2000
capgras do show associative priming
Covert recog
autonomic recog
Hirstein & Ramachandran 97
Patient imposter- not when phoned
Lewis 2001
patient HL : capgras for faces only
Prob w capgras-
prob to prior PIN level
Capgras 23
replaced by imposters, robots and aliens
David 93
capgras allows us to see probs w cog models
Ellis and de pau 94
capgras result from neuro, toxic, other organic
De Pau 94
Traditional explanations of capgras - hard to explain
Ellis 96
Object capgras
Haxby 2000
Prosopagnosia- face recog after loss of right inferotemporal region
Tranel 95
autonomic SCR response
Renault 89
CNS measures
Ellis & Young 90
Mirror image btw capgras and prosopag
Proso
Intact overt & absence covert
Capgras 23
Patients find themsleves in such a conflict.. That they adopt some sort of rationalization strategy in which the individual before them is deemed to be an impsoter, dummy , robot, or what ever extant technology may suggest
Capgras 23
Don't normally show SCR response
Ellis and Young
9SCRs 2 low tone - capgras normal response: therefore not CNS
Ramachandran
Telephone OK
Routes to recog
ventral- lontitudinal fasciculus btw visual cortex and limbic system
Ventral
recognition
Dorsal
Significance of info
Dorsal
superior temporal sulcus, inferior temporal lobe, cingulate gyrus, lymbic system
Breen 2000
Critisized Bauer; face recog along ventral; affective by ventral limbic structures
Coltheart 97
Breen doesn't describe how to fail to receive confirmation; delusion
Farah 93
Covert recog: factionated?
Farah 93
Modified Breen's model
Farah 93
info reintergrated: data identified by comparing joint info
James 50
When know person have automatic "glow"
Stone & Young 97
Bias in favour of observational adequacy
Bauer 84
Frontomedial lesions - no diffs SCR's 2
Bauer 84
famous and non famous but no capgras
Young 99
Delusion manifest after abnormality- attribution stage therefore change in SCR
Bruce and Young model
see pic
Young and Burton 99
Lesions lead to graded degredation of info processing
Critchley 2000
SCR correl w amy
Tranel 85
SCR after faces
Ellis 93
Covert recog= SCR - prosopag
Visual imparement
see pic
Tasks to learn proso capg
name learning, face interference, name face pairing
Breen 2000
single pathway for face recog
Breen 2000
doesn't like dorsal visual pathway!
Breen 2000
Semantic and bio pathway and affective response pathway
Breen 2000
prob w these - they don't show neuro and cog descriptions association problematic - not proven yet
Bauer 86 - evidence for dual route
LF bilateral occipital lobe damage, shown pics, high SCR to correct name vs incorrect name
Tranel &b Demasio
Covert recog in prosopag w SCR
Bauer 86 - evidence for dual route
Overt- ventral visual limbic pathway
Bauer 86 - evidence for dual route
Covert- dorsal visual limbic pathway
Ellis & Young 90
damage to pw - mirror image deficits :
Ellis & Young 90
Proso - ventral damage, Capgras- dorsal damage
Breen 2000
SCR no more than autonomic arousal
Breen 2000
SCR - fear, sexual arrousal etc
Breen 2000
low level discrim
Breen 2000
if saw familiar chair vs chair!
Damasion & Damasio 95
unsure if diff btw appercept due to anatomical localisation or extent of lesion
Bauer 86 - evidence for dual route
autonomic recognition not found in apperceptive patients - unable to activate stored visual info for face
Bauer, Verfaellie 88
80% accurate of face match - face perception intact-
Tranel 95
Prod SCR but small
Tranel & Damasio 98
Associative prosopag- normal SCRs
Baron cohen 2000
not only pathway for autonomic response - SCR can come from frontal lobe lesions
Tranel 95
no scr to fam face
Tranel 95
overt recog ok
Tranel 95
failed to respond to other emotional stim
Ungerlider *& Mishkin 82
Visual pathways: lesion studies, ventral and dorsal p-ways, lesion inferior temp lobe, visual deficit, 2d vs 3D, parietal lobe lesions - no deficit, landmark lesions
Ventral
Obj perception- shape and colour
Dorsal
Spatial location/ place
Breen, Coltheart & Caine 1999
Bauer Does make following distinctions w transfer of info from Bear 83 and UM : 1. Disting btw dorsal and ventral visuo-limbic pathways 2. No distinction btw arrousal and affect
Bauer
adopted by Ellis and young
Bauer
2 routes to face recog
Breen, Coltheart & Caine 1999
dorsal can't recog
Milner & goodale 95
monkeys, 2 pways and in humans obj recog - ventral
Milner 91
DF: visual agnosia : could reach for stuff : hand slot etc : not able to say where put hand in slot - unable to percieve orientating
Goodale 94
RV: couldn't describe obj shape - motor function ok
Milner & goodale 95
amy holds emotion info
Tranel & demasio
Show patient, had SCr from familiar objects
Breen, Coltheart & Caine 1999
agree w Ellis and Young 90, unimpared ventral visual = face recog
Breen, Coltheart & Caine 1999
Affective - amyg
Match face
Ventral temporal lobe
Prosopag
Ventral pathway prob
Breen, Coltheart & Caine 1999
associative- precep representation made in temp but strength lobe too weak to go to ventral
Breen, Coltheart & Caine 1999
Apperceptive - unable to make repres of face - can't pass to lymbic - unlikely to have autonomic response
Breen, Coltheart & Caine 1999
Capgras- intact ventral, disrupted connections to limbic or spared limbic
Ellis 97
SCR to fam face- amy, SCR to tones cingulate
Herstin & Ramachandran 97
spoke to parents on phone
Farah 90
Prosopags- weak SCR- long rctn time, covert recog - not normal recog - tested covertly
Breen, Coltheart & Caine 1999
Young taken two ways 1. Visual and affective from FRU 2. FRU to PIN and 2 routes also
Breen, Coltheart & Caine 1999
agree w model, strong rel = strong affective respnse
Breen, Coltheart & Caine 1999
Pins or affective come from FRU
(Burton et al., 1991
published, a key question has been whether overt and covert face recognition are
Bobes(2003)
"investigated ERP correlates in
Bobes(2003)
different pictures showed the same or a different person
Bobes(2003)
covert matching of unfamiliar faces; a very short onset latency
Bobes(2003)
"this suggests that FE is unimpaired in early face perception, and can extract structural codes from faces with normal speed
Bobes(2003)
same impairment that causes prosopagnosia may explain an impairment in sequential (but not simultaneous) matching of unfamiliar faces
Schweinberger& Burton 2002
Bobes used no time delay between the sequentially presented faces
Schweinberger& Burton 2003
Bobes- critisism, still don't know whether unfamiliar andfamiliar faces are processed by the same mechanisms.
Schweinberger& Burton 2004
Bobes-it would have been interesting to see whether ERP findings would support a normal timing of familiar face perception in FE