دانلود مقاله ISI انگلیسی شماره 37670
عنوان فارسی مقاله

سفارش متوالی از چهره بدل و حالات چهره پس از آسیب لوب تمپورال

کد مقاله سال انتشار مقاله انگلیسی ترجمه فارسی تعداد کلمات
37670 2006 8 صفحه PDF سفارش دهید محاسبه نشده
خرید مقاله
پس از پرداخت، فوراً می توانید مقاله را دانلود فرمایید.
عنوان انگلیسی
Sequential ordering of morphed faces and facial expressions following temporal lobe damage
منبع

Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)

Journal : Neuropsychologia, Volume 44, Issue 8, 2006, Pages 1398–1405

کلمات کلیدی
آمیگدال - احساسات - عاطفه صورت - جلوه های ویژه گرافیکی صورت - ضایعات مغزی
پیش نمایش مقاله
پیش نمایش مقاله سفارش متوالی از چهره بدل و حالات چهره پس از آسیب لوب تمپورال

چکیده انگلیسی

Abstract A card ordering task was developed to evaluate the role of the temporal lobe in perceiving subtle featural displacements of faces that contribute to judgments of facial expression and identity. Individuals with varying degrees of temporal lobe damage and healthy controls were required to manually sort cards depicting morphs of facial expressions or facial identities so that the cards were sequentially ordered from one morph endpoint to another. Four morph progressions were used—three emotion morphs (neutral-to-anger, neutral-to-fear, and fear-to-anger) and an identity morph. Five exemplars were given per morph type. Debriefing verified that participants were using feature-level cues to sort the cards. A patient with bilateral amygdala damage due to epilepsy did not differ in her sorting abilities from unilateral temporal lobectomy patients or controls. In contrast, a post-encephalitic patient with widespread left temporal lobe damage showed impairments that were most marked on the fear-to-anger and identity sorts. These results show that amygdala-damaged individuals can use information contained in facial expressions to solve tasks that rely on feature-level analysis, which recruits processing in other temporal lobe regions involved in making fine featural distinctions.

نتیجه گیری انگلیسی

2. Results Debriefing confirmed that the sorting task involved feature-based analysis; all subjects reported that they focused on how one or two particular facial features changed while sorting, regardless of the morph type. For example, on the neutral-to-fear sort, most subjects (including those with temporal lobe damage) reported using increasing eye or mouth aperture to guide their sort, while on the identity sort, subjects would use features such as presence of freckles or width of the lip, nose or eyebrow. Two performance indices were examined—mean sort time and concordance of each subject's ordering with the correct order. Reaction time and concordance values for the right TLB and left TLB patients were compared and found to be equal; hence, the values for the two groups were combined to form the TLB group. 2.1. Reaction time Mean sorting times for the different individuals and groups across the four sort types are shown in Fig. 3. Between-groups analysis of the TLB and two control groups did not find any group differences in sorting times, F < 1, but did find a difference between the sorting times for the different morph blocks, F(2, 88) = 13.21, p < 0.01. Post hoc analyses showed that this effect reflects the fact that the identity morphs took longer to sort than the emotion morphs. There were no differences in sorting times for the three emotion morph types. Mean sorting times for patient S.P., patient C.B., unilateral temporal lobectomy ... Fig. 3. Mean sorting times for patient S.P., patient C.B., unilateral temporal lobectomy patients (TLB), older controls, and younger controls across the four morph types. Standard error is indicated by error bars where applicable. (*) p < 0.05 relative to S.P.; (○) p < 0.05 relative to C.B. Figure options Comparison of S.P.'s sorting times to those of the TLB group and the two control groups revealed that she performed the neutral-to-anger sorts more quickly than her age-matched controls, t(16) = 2.46, p < 0.05, and young controls, t(19) = 2.19, p < 0.05. There were no differences in sorting times between S.P. and the other groups on the neutral-to-fear or the fear-to-anger morph sorts. She performed more quickly than all three groups on the identity sort (versus TLBs: t(12) = 4.49, p < 0.01; versus young controls: t(19) = 5.52, p < 0.01; versus age-matched controls: t(13) = 4.16, p < 0.01). In short, S.P.'s reaction times indicated that she did not encounter difficulties with this task. Comparison of C.B.'s sorting times to those of the TLB group and the two control groups revealed that she performed the neutral-to-anger sorts more slowly than the TLB group, t(12) = −4.27, p < 0.01, and young controls, t(19) = −3.20, p < 0.01. She was also slower than the TLB group and young controls on the neutral-to-fear sorts (versus TLBs: t(12) = −4.66, p < 0.01; versus young controls: t(19) = −3.57, p < 0.01). C.B.'s sort times were slower than those of any of the groups on the fear-to-anger sort (versus TLBs: t(12) = −6.48, p < 0.01; versus young controls: t(19) = −6.25, p < 0.01; versus older controls: t(16) = −4.48, p < 0.01) and the identity sort (versus TLBs: t(12) = −6.56, p < 0.01; versus controls: t(19) = −6.65, p < 0.01; versus older controls: t(13) = −2.40, p < 0.05). Overall, C.B.'s reaction times indicate that she had more difficulty completing this task than other participants, particularly the fear-to-anger and identity blocks. 2.2. Concordance: Kendall's tau Concordance values for the different individuals and groups across the four sort types are shown in Fig. 4. Between-groups analysis of the TLB group and the two control groups revealed a main effect of group, F(2, 43) = 11.40, p < 0.01. Post hoc tests revealed that this main effect reflected a tendency for the young controls to sort more accurately than either the TLB or the older control group, who did not differ from each other. There was also a main effect of morph type, F(3, 65) = 18.73, p < 0.01. Post hoc comparisons revealed that this was due to the fact that, overall, performance on the fear-to-anger and identity sorts was lower than performance on the neutral-to-anger and fear-to-anger sorts. These main effects were mediated by a significant group by morph type interaction, F(3, 65) = 3.26, p < 0.05. The lower performance on the fear-to-anger and identity morphs was a pattern common to the TLB and older control groups, whereas the performance profile for the young control group showed no difference across morph types. Mean concordance values (Kendall's tau) for patient S.P., patient C.B., ... Fig. 4. Mean concordance values (Kendall's tau) for patient S.P., patient C.B., unilateral temporal lobectomy patients (TLB), older controls, and younger controls across the four morph types. Standard error is indicated by error bars where applicable. (*) p < 0.05 relative to S.P.; (○) p < 0.05 relative to C.B. Figure options Comparison of S.P.'s concordance values to those of the TLB group and the two control groups revealed that she performed the neutral-to-anger sorts less accurately than young controls, t(19) = 2.19, p < 0.05. This was also the case for the neutral-to-fear, fear-to-anger, and the identity morph sorts (neutral-to-fear: t(19) = 2.63, p < 0.05; fear-to-anger: t(19) = 4.50, p < 0.01; identity: t(19) = 6.17, p < 0.01). There were no differences between the sorting performance of S.P. and the TLB group and her age-matched controls on any of the morph sorts except that she outperformed the TLB group on the identity sort, t(12) = 2.29, p < 0.05. In summary, S.P.'s sorting performance did not differ appreciably from any of the groups except the young control group. Importantly, there were no differences between S.P. and her age-matched controls on any of the morph sorts. Comparison of C.B.'s sorting accuracy to that of the TLB group and the two control groups revealed that she performed the neutral-to-anger sorts less accurately than young controls, t(19) = 3.14, p < 0.01. She also sorted less accurately than young controls on the neutral-to-fear sorts, t(19) = 2.25, p < 0.05. On the fear-to-anger sorts, C.B.'s performance accuracy was impaired relative to the TLB patients and both control groups (versus TLBs: t(12) = 5.42, p < 0.01; versus young controls: t(19) = 12.98, p < 0.01; versus older controls: t(16) = 2.30, p < 0.05). Compared to all three groups, she also performed more poorly on the identity sort (versus TLBs: t(12) = 4.51, p < 0.01; versus young controls: t(19) = 17.67, p < 0.01; versus older controls: t(13) = 4.51, p < 0.01). In summary, analysis of C.B.'s concordance values produced results that mirrored her sorting times—overall, she had some difficulty on this task, especially on the fear-to-anger and identity morphs.

خرید مقاله
پس از پرداخت، فوراً می توانید مقاله را دانلود فرمایید.