Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
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
|
