Essay Example on Debate as to whether self face and other faces are Processed

There has been much debate as to whether self face and other faces are processed within different regions of the brain This debate has come about due to the fact that in facial recognition sensory and image based representations of faces both self and others are stored within the brain so could there be an overlap Keyes Brady 2010 Research has looked to distinguish whether there are separate areas within the brain that are responsible for separately responsible for processing self face and other faces One study that has looked into this is Turk Heatherton Kelly Funnell Gazzaniga Macrea 2002 study where the presented participants with different images of morphed faces some photos contained a higher percentage of self features than other images From their study they discovered both hemispheres of the brain are competent in recognising our own face as well as the faces of others suggesting a bilateral representation but found from their results that left hemisphere had a bias to recognising self face and the right to other faces Turk et al 2002 Further evidence has been found suggesting bilateral representation of self face findings from Kircher et al 2001 and Sugiura et al 2005 show in the fusiform gyrus area of brain associated with face recognition self face is processed in both the left and right of fusiform gyrus but only lateralized to the right for faces These findings all suggest self face and faces being processed differently Uddin Rayman Zaidel 2005 also conducted a study using morphed images of self showing participants these images to one hemisphere at a time in which they had to decide whether the image was their self or another person 

Their findings showed that both the left and hemisphere were capable of recognising self whilst other faces were only able to be recognised by the right hemisphere Uddin et al 2005 suggests self face and other processed in separate regions The bilateral processing of self face recognition has also led to the suggestion that each hemisphere is responsible in processing different aspects of self face Rossion et al 2002 proposed in regard to self face recognition the right hemisphere is responsible in processing facial features whilst the left processes facial configuration Configural information is thought to be key in accurate recognition of faces EEG studies have looked at the Event Related Potential ERP component N170 in relation configuration of faces The N170 component is used to analyse importance of configuration in facial recognition as it has been found to be face sensitive Eimer 2011 N170 component is face sensitive because it is found to be active at occipitotemporal electrodes from 140ms to 200ms once stimulus has been presented and faces generate a much bigger response than non faces e g houses Eimer 2011 Studies have shown the N170 component is sensitive to face inversion as it causes a 10ms response to facial stimuli when stimuli are inverted in comparison to upright faces Bentin et al 1996 Rossion et al 2000 N170 being sensitive to face inversion suggests inversion disrupts the processing of configural information associated with faces this further suggests configural information is key to us being able to process and recognise faces delay in N170 responding to inverted faces suggests the same Eimer 2011 Self face advantage which is the idea that our own face is so distinctive to us that we far better and faster at recognising it over other familiar faces 

Our current study will be observing neurological activity relating to self face processing by using 14 channels from an EEG The EEG will be recording participants responses to images as part of a categorization task in which participants will have to respond to images of self and a familiar intonating the sounds ah b sh and woo also must respond to images of flowers ERP data will be analysed in relation to participants reaction time to the different images ERP visual components N170 and VPP will also be analysed in regard to how it is affected by inverted images of self and familiar other We hypothesize that participants will be better and faster in the recognition of upright faces over inverted faces We also hypothesize that there will be a high amplitude in ERP component N170 for face sensitivity and self effect high amplitude for ERP component VPP for other faces There is also an expectancy that results will show evidence of a self face advantage images of self responded to quicker than other even when orientation of image presented is altered