[论文解读] The Quest for the FFA led to the Expertise Account of its Specialization

L. Gauthier|arXiv (Cornell University)|Feb 22, 2017

Face Recognition and Perception被引用 6

一句话总结

本文主张梭状回脸区（FFA）并非天生具有面孔特异性，而是反映对视觉复杂、依赖部件构型的物体的知觉专长。基于数十年的fMRI研究，本文表明FFA对汽车、鸟类等非面孔类别专家识别的反应强烈，支持专长理论而非专门的面孔处理模块。其主要贡献在于从历史与实证角度捍卫专长是导致FFA特化的机制，反驳了先天面孔选择性的主张。

ABSTRACT

This article is written in response to a Progressions article by Kanwisher in the Journal of Neuroscience, The Quest for the FFA and Where It Led (Kanwisher, 2017). I reflect on the extensive research program dedicated to the study of how and why perceptual expertise explains the many ways that faces are special, a research program which both predates and follows the Kanwisher (1997) landmark article where the fusiform face area (FFA) is named. The expertise accounts suggests that the FFA is an area recruited by expertise individuating objects that are perceptually similar because they share a configuration of parts. While Kanwisher (2017) discussed the expertise account only very briefly and only to dismiss it, there is strong and replicable evidence that responses in the FFA are highly sensitive to experience with non-face objects. I point out that Kanwisher was well positioned to present these findings in their historical context as she participated in the design of the first fMRI study on car and bird expertise, as well as the first replication of this finding. Perhaps most relevant to readers interested in the neural bases of face processing, it is important to distinguish studies that describe the phenomenon of face-selectivity from those that test an explanation for this phenomenon. In the Progressions article, arguments for a face-dedicated processing module that is not the result of our experience with faces are provided without attention to a great deal of expertise research which is directly inconsistent with that claim. The claim also lacks more direct support, as face-selective responses in the visual system are not found in infants and children and face-selective activity in FFA does not appear to be heritable.

研究动机与目标

• 挑战梭状回脸区（FFA）是专门的、先天的面孔处理模块的主张。
• 强调专长理论在解释FFA特化方面的历史与实证基础。
• 阐明描述面孔选择性与解释其神经基础之间的区别。
• 证明FFA中对面孔的选择性反应是随经验发展而出现的，而非源于先天特化。
• 纠正近期文献中对专长研究的误读，特别是Kanwisher（2017）的《进展》文章中的误读。

提出的方法

• 对纵向fMRI研究中知觉专长的分析，包括首项关于汽车与鸟类专长的fMRI研究。
• 对复制研究的回顾，显示非面孔专家对象在FFA中产生一致的激活。
• 对婴儿与儿童FFA反应的比较，表明早期并无面孔选择性。
• 利用神经影像数据对比基于专长的模型与模块化模型在FFA功能中的差异。
• 对1990年代以来研究的历史综合，强调Gauthier在早期fMRI专长实验中的作用。
• 对FFA面孔选择性遗传力数据的评估，表明其无显著遗传基础。

实验结果

研究问题

• RQ1 为何梭状回脸区（FFA）选择性地被面孔激活，这是源于先天特化还是经验？
• RQ2 非面孔专家对象（如汽车或鸟类）在多大程度上引发与面孔相似的FFA反应？
• RQ3 FFA中的面孔选择性活动是否在发育早期出现，还是由经验塑造？
• RQ4 FFA对面孔的反应是更应由专门模块解释，还是由对视觉复杂、部件构型依赖的物体的知觉专长解释？
• RQ5 在缺乏发育或遗传力证据的情况下，专长理论如何与声称存在先天面孔处理模块的说法调和？

主要发现

• FFA对汽车、鸟类等非面孔物体的专家级识别表现出强烈且可重复的激活，支持专长理论。
• 首项关于汽车与鸟类专长的fMRI研究由Kanwisher共同设计，后续研究已成功复制，证实经验对FFA激活的关键作用。
• 婴儿与年幼儿童中未观察到FFA的面孔选择性反应，与先天特化论相矛盾。
• 缺乏FFA面孔选择性活动的强遗传证据，削弱了其为基因编程模块的主张。
• 专长理论与声称存在面孔专用处理模块的主张直接矛盾，此点已由大量行为与神经影像数据证实。
• FFA的特化更应由对具有复杂、基于部件构型的物体的知觉专长来解释，而非对面孔的进化适应。