MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1999394085 · doi:10.1167/10.7.585

Residual face-selectivity of the N170 and M170 is related to the status of the occipital and fusiform face areas in acquired prosopagnosia

2010· article· en· W1999394085 on OpenAlexaff
İpek Oruç, Teresa Cheung, Kirsten A. Dalrymple, Charles D. Fox, Giuseppe Iaria, Todd C. Handy, J. Barton

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFace Recognition and Perception
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgarySimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMagnetoencephalographyFusiform face areaNeuropsychologyPsychologyFace (sociological concept)NeuroimagingElectroencephalographyArtificial intelligencePerceptionNeuroscienceAudiologyFace perceptionComputer scienceCognitionMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Event-related potentials (ERP) using scalp EEG recordings demonstrate that a difference between the perception of face and non-face object stimuli is evident in the N170 potential, usually larger over the posterior regions of the right hemisphere. A similar phenomenon is noted in the M170 potential in magnetoencephalography (MEG). The anatomic origins of this face-selective N170 remain uncertain, with proposals that it may reflect contributions from the FFA, STS or both. To investigate this, we studied the face-selective N170 using ERP and M170 using MEG in patients with acquired prosopagnosia. Significance of face/object contrasts in single-subject ERP were based on nonparametric bootstrap confidence intervals. All patients had undergone extensive neuropsychological and behavioural testing, as well as structural and functional MRI with a dynamic face localizer (Fox et al, Human Brain Mapping 2009) to characterize the post-lesion status of their core face-processing network, namely the FFA, STS and OFA. Two patients had right or bilateral anterior temporal damage from herpes encephalitis, sparing all components of the core network. The ERP data showed that, despite their prosopagnosia, they still showed a significant difference between faces and objects in the N170 over the right occipitotemporal regions, which was confirmed in the M170 using MEG in one patient. Three patients had occipitotemporal damage, two with loss of the FFA alone and one with loss of the FFA and OFA. Two of these subjects showed no difference between faces and objects in either the N170 or M170; however one subject with loss of the FFA alone did show a residual face-selective N170. We conclude that STS survival is insufficient on its own to generate a face-selective N170 in some patients, but on the other hand loss of the FFA alone does not always eliminate this electrophysiological phenomenon.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.821
Threshold uncertainty score0.155

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.278 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of VisionSame topicFace Recognition and PerceptionFrench-language works237,207