Brain Visual Processing

The face is an important feature of the human body that is utilized to distinguish persons when they are looked at. Such distinctions are gained by visual processing in the brain, which isolates and distinguishes specific aspects of the faces. In doing so, the brain employs modularity, with each module serving a specific purpose in the processing of certain material. However, alternative perspectives have emerged, with some scholars criticizing such concepts and others supporting them.
The capacity to recognize faces is due to the fact that it is done with the entire mind in mind. This means that personal features on appearance help in the processing of information that guides in decoding and differentiating it from other objects. Thus, some studies have been conducted in line with explaining how such differences occur as the mind differentiates the face from other objects. The prosopagnosia which is either inherent or developed seems to offer an understanding of the exact facial recognition by the brains as opposed to other objects.

The specialised brain regions are used in the understanding visual creation of face and objects as the brain record them. Accordingly, different scientific and psychological studies supported by the practical application have been conducted to explain the believed brain segmentation that can store and retain faces as opposed to other objects. The emphasis is put on strait forward looking at the face as opposed to distorted ones and it is assumed to be attributed to different factors. The review, focuses on how the article explains this scientific view of brain functionalities in recording and decoding faces as opposed to object. Much emphasis is given to the processing process of the brain and particularly in the developmental prosopadnosic.

Visual Processing in the Brain

The capability to identify faces is significant to human beings since it appears that there is a particular section in the bran that is devoted to the task. Brain imaging evaluations highlight that the fusiform gyrus becomes active when individuals look at the physical appearance of other people. However, several studies epitomise a correlation of on the exact part of the brain that is responsible for face processing, but they have no proof. Development prosopagnosia (DP) is a condition where a person has extreme problems with recognising faces due to the failure to establish the essential neural mechanism of processing required in that process. The paper examines the existing evidence regarding the processing in the brain by articulating the region of the brain as well as expertise theory of facial recognition.

Specialized Brains Regions for Face Perception

The parts of the temporal and occipital lobes which comprises of the fusiform gyrus (FG) regions have been suggested to have the critical optical depiction structure for faces since they illustrate face repetition and selectivity suppression. Such identification is a special type of sequence recognition that entails a highly adaptive function of discovering people as well as picking information expressions. The FG is the structure situated in the basal part of the occipital and temporal lobes. The region forms a part of the Brodmann area 37 together with the medial and inferior temporal gyri. Moreover, FG is made of the anterior and posterior portion while it is delineated inferiorly by occipoto-temporal sulcus and superiorly by a collateral sulcus. Much evidence from different studies has illustrated how FG is responsible for its processing after carrying out varying research on the mental section that recognises people.

According to Gauthier et al (2000), face processing biases for distinct categories is based on the experience with levels of grouping as well as the expertise in obtaining diagnostic features. Observing people has been found to activate the tiny extra-striate region known as fusiform face area (FFA). Further, Gauthier study illustrated that FFA is dedicated to the task of recognising a person although it can mediate the process of identifying items. Neuropsychological studies have suggested that the mental areas accountable for object and face processing can be differentiated. The FFA cortex has the map of visual structures which indicates that the same part must not be recruited for identifying things when relevant features vary.

Furl et al (2011) illustrated that even if developmental processing show deficient face definition, there has been no evidence that demonstrates indisputable reductions of workable reactions in suggested critical neuro regions. After carrying a study using fMRI, it was concluded that repetition suppression specific to face recognition in fusiform gyrus and exceptional temporal sulcus had no compelling associations with awareness capability. However, Furl recognised the robust link between individual recognition and selectivity ability in fusiform gyrus across the sample for various concurrent measures comprising of peak face discernment, anatomical extents and voxel-wise statistical parametric mapping. The FFA are considered as the core regions within the temporal and occipital lobes which are the functional neuro-anatomy of face understanding. The core areas are in charge of visual identification of facial attributed and are differentiated from the extended system that further information from visual recognition. FFA has been linked with face subtlety since they react steadily when compared to non-face objects.

Moreover, Furl et al (2011) argue that neural responses within FFA can assuage in reaction to the recurring facial data which is regarded as repetition suppression. In normal viewers, the identity replication suppresses parts within fusiform gyrus while repeating changeable attributes, including expression results to BOLD suppression in various regions of the brain such as the superior temporal sulcus. Even if the face-related parts of the brain suggest the probable loci for neural abnormalities in the development prosopagnosia, there is limited proof in contemporary studies illustrating functional defects in the FFA. The majority of the DP case evaluation utilising fMRI has reported usual face-selective reactions in FG. Nevertheless, some typing assessments in personal cases have recognised some DPs without face expression or selectivity dependent on FG. The practical imaging of the DP has offered incomplete or inconsistent evidence for modified brain activities in FFA that have been related to such processing. The evidence by Furl et al., illustrates that FG is the major part of the brain that controls facial processing since it demonstrates repetition and selectivity suppression.

Freiwald et al (2016), notes that face cells are found in the prefrontal and temporal cortex which suggests that faces are signified in a distributed pattern. Besides, neuroimaging studies have revealed organisational features of face patches in the lower section of the exceptional temporal sulcus as well as the medio-dorsally within fundus. The face patches have high factions of the selective neurons which are responsible for identifying different individuals. The distributed areas are inter-linked into the face-processing complex via the discerning long-distance correlations. Therefore, the facial data processing is integrated locally and across the huge distances separating FFAs. However, the relative timing of activation, spatial arrangement of face regions and task traits highlight the principles in its recognition network. The FFAs are structured along the posterior-anterior alliance and reaction lantencies steadily progress from the late to early areas which suggest hierarchical organisation. The facial facts are transformed systematically from the previous view representations into the current identity-specific illustrations. Within the posterior region, selectivity for the eye and single feature dominate while broad ranges of facial traits are identified in the anterior part.

For facial data to be obtained, the face must be identified on sight. Face recognition is based on the computational and psychophysical work which depends on the coarse contrast association between distinct regions of the face. The previous evidence has been associating neural areas and faced processing defects to DP. However, prosopagnosia is believed to originate from lesions in the anterior temporal and ventral occipital lobes within the right hemisphere which indicate face processing is right lateralized. The practical envisioning has permitted researchers to evaluate the status of FFA in people with acquired DP. Different studies have illustrated that individuals with DP have damages within the right OFA although the FFA is intact. Besides, Freiwald et al (2016) indicate that prosopagnosics have offered an indication that the right hemisphere posterior parts are essential for face identification. Based on the findings, it is clear that face-selection areas long the whole ventral route take part in face identification.

The above evidence is very strong because they entail findings from different researchers form distinct location as well as having varying objectives. Most of the studies have illustrated that FFA plays a great role in face recognition since it shows the expression and repetition suppressions. Besides, the findings have elaborated that FFA can differentiate between an object and face meaning that the major role of FG is facing processing rather than general visual recognition. Additionally, the neural imaging has depicted different reactions of the FG when an individual is viewing a person or an object. No evidence support defects within FG among individuals with DP which concludes that FFA has to the fundamental role of identifying faces.

Expertise Theory for Face Processing

As noted by Bentin, Deouell, & Soroker (1999), efficient facial recognition requires distributions and unique cascading of the earlier encoded face visual primitive into a devoted face recognition system (part of the brain that decodes the information). As such, development of prosopagnosia is marked by damaged face recognition (Duchaine, & Nakayama, 2006). It is a disorder that usually can be found in families, but without a history of brain damage and also with normal historical optical processing systems.

Previous studies had demonstrated that defalcation to a feigned unitary observable identification system did not account for the prosopagnosia. However, recent psychological studies that examine whether they are dealt with precise mechanism with a vast spectrum of item classes indicates that there is a face-specific processing mechanism (Yovel & Duchaine, 2006). The author also notes that facial recognition is refined holistically by automatically dealing with features together with their exact configuration. In this light, the brain has a section (agnosia) that specifically undertakes information regarding faces.

Moreover, McKone, Kanwisher, & Duchaine (2008), argues that exposure of children to faces in early childhood create “infant experience plus other factor theory” that can be used to explain the holistic facial processing restricted to upright faces. In this theory, the infant develops a cognitive aspect of decoding faces as adults hold them. Such cognitive aspects allow the child to differentiate a parent from other people and particularly the mother or the person who holds the child for long. Variants also support other studies such as the heritability developmental prosopagnosia that could emerge when genetic abnormalities or other factors are present. Accordingly, agnosia is viewed as an existing or developed part of the neuro-psychology that creates a ‘selective’ facial recognition aspect.

Behavioural attempts with normal subjects’ shows that upright face recognition is more specific in the configurations of the sections of the face such as nose, mouth, and their relative distances from each other and proximity to the eyes, than other items’ recognition (Duchaine, & Nakayama, 2006). These experiments also prove the context of the possibility of the existence of face-specific recognition abilities of the brain. That section is commonly referred as fusiform face area abbreviated as FFA. It is also uncertain if such behavioural experiments demarcate that the brain has a special section or cognitive ability to recognise only faces as opposed to other objects. Russell (2017) notes that occurrence of both acquired and developmental prosopagnosia does not always fit with the functional imaging evidence for FFA. Evidently, despite some practical implications of possible factors that allow the brain to interpret the face as compared to other objects, there are limitations in such studies.

Russell (2017), also believes that earlier studies assumed or focused on acquired prosopagnosia which is caused by brain damage. However, recent research shows that it occurs to some of the healthy populations but have a poor perception of the faces which can be termed as developmentally prosopagnosic. This altercation does not in any way seem to reduce the weight of the previous notions but supports his view on the possible existence of both acquired and developmental prosopagnosia as he describes it the next paragraph.

The idea presented in this article is entire convincing in that it presents both the positive and the limitation of the claim. The author does not just consider the factors and the studies that only support the claim that visual processing in the brain takes specific parts and roles in recognitions of faces and objects. He notes that despite having supporting claims and practical experiments that seem to support the arguments, there is the need to have more studies to explain the existence of acquired and developmental prosopagnosia. Accordingly, it is clear that his claims do not lean on just one side but demonstrate both sides of the case. However, the article supports its thesis, showing that the process of face processing is distinctive from other objects. The mind can relate some parts of the face such as the distance of the nose from the mouth and the nose from the eyes. Such points are pivotal in the construction of the meanings in the process of facial recognition.

There is no denying that the author of the piece is conversant with the topic, but falls short of supporting arguments from other scholars. Throughout the literature, very few instances of citation have been noted. With this kind of discussion, it is essential for the author to shows his source of information as he makes different claims. It is also unclear if the list of references was intended to guide the reader to look for extra information concerning the topic or it was intended to imply where the author got his information from. Accordingly, despite having conversant knowledge on the topic the author should have engaged more information from other scholars as a way of proving the credibility of the information of the article.

Conclusively, the introduction of the articles notes the importance of facial recognition as part of the cognitive process of the mind. The faces have special features that allow the mind to recognise it more easily as compared to the other objects. Accordingly, the fast and accurate perception of information regarding the face is biologically developed through our minds. This concept emerges from the fact that the interpretations are holistically processed through the preferential allocation of attention to certain references. A large body of evidence supports this argument (fusiform gyrus or fusiform face area FFA). Accordingly, the article has looked at the biological and psychological decoding of people as compared to other objects noting the differences exhibited in the practical experiments.



References

Bentin, S., Deouell, L. Y., & Soroker, N. (1999). Selective visual streaming in face recognition: Evidence from developmental prosopagnosia. Neuroreport, 10(4), 823-827.

Duchaine, B. C., & Nakayama, K. (2006). Developmental prosopagnosia: a window to content-specific face processing. Current opinion in neurobiology, 16(2), 166-173.

Freiwald et al. (2016).Face processing systems: from neurons to real world social perception. Annu Rev Neurosci. 39, 325–346.

Furl N., Garrido L., Dolan R., Driver J., & Duchaine B. (2011). Fusiform gyrus face-selectivity reflects facial recognition ability. Europe PMC Funders Group, 23(7), 1723–1740.

Gauthier I., et al. (2000). Expertise for cars and birds recruits brain areas involved in face recognition. Nature America, 3(2), 191-197.

McKone E., Kanwisher N., & Duchaine B. (2006).Can generic expertise explain special processing for faces? TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences, 11(1).

Russell C. (2017). Distorted worlds (5PAHSHP): Academic Year 2017/18- Vision Practical.

Yovel, G., & Duchaine, B. (2006). Specialized face perception mechanisms extract both part and spacing information: Evidence from developmental prosopagnosia. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18(4), 580-593.