面孔生命性加工的时间进程：ERP研究

doi:10.12139/j.1672-0628.2022.05.001

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 本研究采用事件相关电位技术，通过参数设计考察了大脑加工面孔生命性时的神经电活动动态进程。结果显示：非生命性面孔比生命性面孔在中央顶区诱发了更大的LPP波幅；生命性和非生命性面孔诱发的LPP波幅均显著大于中间等级（60%）面孔，提示随生命性信息增强，LPP波幅呈“U”型变化。P1和N170未表现出面孔类别差异。结果表明LPP是探测面孔生命性加工的有效成分，支持面孔生命性加工位于面孔加工的晚期阶段的观点。

关键词: 面孔加工, 生命性知觉, 事件相关电位

Abstract: In this study, we examined the dynamic time courses of electrophysiological activity during the processing of animacy faces by parametric design using event-related potentials (ERPs). The results showed that inanimacy faces evoked more late positive potential (LPP) amplitude than animacy faces in the central-parietal region. Furthermore, the LPP amplitudes evoked by animacy and inanimacy faces were both significantly larger than that evoked by intermediate animacy strength (60%) faces, suggesting that the electrical signal pattern of LPP changed into a U-shape with the increase in animacy strength. There were no differences between animacy and inanimacy faces in P1 and N170. These results suggest that animacy is processed at the later stage of facial processing, and LPP is an effective index of detection of animacy on face. The results support the two-stage theory of the perception of animacy on face.

Key words: face processing, perception of animacy, ERP

中图分类号:

B842

金花, 严世振, 单金磊, 刘婷. 面孔生命性加工的时间进程：ERP研究[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2022, 20(5): 577-584.

JIN Hua, YAN Shizhen, SHAN Jinlei, LIU Ting. The Time Course of the Perception of Animacy: Evidence from ERP[J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2022, 20(5): 577-584.

参考文献

郑晨烨, 王静梅, 胡佳, 王一逸, 郑娴, 张莹, 卢英俊. (2015). 面部空间特征关系对真人与卡通面孔吸引力影响的ERP发展性研究. 心理学进展, 5(12), 816–827
Balas, B., & Auen, A. (2019). Perceiving animacy in own-and other-species faces. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 29, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00029.
Balas, B., & Koldewyn, K. (2013). Early visual ERP sensitivity to the species and animacy of faces. Neuropsychologia, 51(13), 2876–2881, doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2013.09.014.
Balas, B., & Tonsager, C. (2014). Face animacy is not all in the eyes: Evidence from contrast chimeras. Perception, 43(5), 355–367, doi: 10.1068/p7696.
Balas, B., van Lamsweerde, A. E., Auen, A., & Saville, A. (2017). The impact of face inversion on animacy categorization. i-Perception, 8(4), 1–16, doi: 10.1177/2041669517723653.
Barry, R. J., Steiner, G. Z., De Blasio, F. M., Fogarty, J. S., Karamacoska, D., & MacDonald, B. (2020). Components in the P300: Don’t forget the novelty P3! Psychophysiology, 57(7), e13371, doi: 10.1111/psyp.13371.
Bowling, N. C., & Banissy, M. J. (2017). Emotion expression modulates perception of animacy from faces. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 71, 83–95, doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2017.02.004.
Farid, H., & Bravo, M. J. (2012). Perceptual discrimination of computer generated and photographic faces. Digital Investigation, 8(3–4), 226–235, doi: 10.1016/j.diin.2011.06.003.
Fimreite, V., Ciuffreda, K. J., & Yadav, N. K. (2015). Effect of luminance on the visually-evoked potential in visually-normal individuals and in mTBI/concussion. Brain Injury, 29(10), 1199–1210, doi: 10.3109/02699052.2015.1035329.
Foti, D., Hajcak, G., & Dien, J. (2009). Differentiating neural responses to emotional pictures: Evidence from temporal-spatial PCA. Psychophysiology, 46(3), 521–530, doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2009.00796.x.
Hackel, L. M., Looser, C. E., & van Bavel, J. J. (2014). Group membership alters the threshold for mind perception: The role of social identity, collective identification, and intergroup threat. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 52, 15–23, doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2013.12.001.
Hajcak, G., & Foti, D. (2020). Significance?.. Significance! Empirical, methodological, and theoretical connections between the late positive potential and P300 as neural responses to stimulus significance: An integrative review. Psychophysiology, 57(7), e13570, doi: 10.1111/psyp.13570.
Hajcak, G., MacNamara, A., & Olvet, D. M. (2010). Event-related potentials, emotion, and emotion regulation: An integrative review. Developmental Neuropsychology, 35(2), 129–155, doi: 10.1080/87565640903526504.
Joyce, C., & Rossion, B. (2005). The face-sensitive N170 and VPP components manifest the same brain processes: The effect of reference electrode site. Clinical Neurophysiology, 116(11), 2613–2631, doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2005.07.005.
Kaminska, O. K., Magnuski, M., Olszanowski, M., Gola, M., Brzezicka, A., & Winkielman, P. (2020). Ambiguous at the second sight: Mixed facial expressions trigger late electrophysiological responses linked to lower social impressions. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 20(2), 441–454, doi: 10.3758/s13415-020-00778-5.
Koldewyn, K., Hanus, P., & Balas, B. (2014). Visual adaptation of the perception of “life”: Animacy is a basic perceptual dimension of faces. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21(4), 969–975, doi: 10.3758/s13423-013-0562-5.
Liu, P., Forte, J., Sewell, D., & Carter, O. (2018). Cognitive load effects on early visual perceptual processing. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 80(4), 929–950, doi: 10.3758/s13414-017-1464-9.
Looser, C. E., Guntupalli, J. S., & Wheatley, T. (2013). Multivoxel patterns in face-sensitive temporal regions reveal an encoding schema based on detecting life in a face. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 8(7), 799–805, doi: 10.1093/scan/nss078.
Looser, C. E., & Wheatley, T. (2010). The tipping point of animacy: How, when, and where we perceive life in a face. Psychological Science, 21(12), 1854–1862, doi: 10.1177/0956797610388044.
Marzi, T., & Viggiano, M. P. (2010). When memory meets beauty: Insights from event-related potentials. Biological Psychology, 84(2), 192–205, doi: 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2010.01.013.
Olszanowski, M., Kaminska, O. K., & Winkielman, P. (2018). Mixed matters: Fluency impacts trust ratings when faces range on valence but not on motivational implications. Cognition and Emotion, 32(5), 1032–1051, doi: 10.1080/02699931.2017.1386622.
Pendleton, D. M., Sakalik, M. L., Moore, M. L., & Tomporowski, P. D. (2016). Mental engagement during cognitive and psychomotor tasks: Effects of task type, processing demands, and practice. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 109, 124–131, doi: 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2016.08.012.
Schindler, S., Zell, E., Botsch, M., & Kissler, J. (2017). Differential effects of face-realism and emotion on event-related brain potentials and their implications for the uncanny valley theory. Scientific Reports, 7, 45003, doi: 10.1038/srep45003.
Schirmer, A., & Adolphs, R. (2017). Emotion perception from face, voice, and touch: Comparisons and convergence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 21(3), 216–228, doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2017.01.001.
Schwab, D., Zorjan, S., & Schienle, A. (2021). Face the food: Food plating with facial patterns influences appetite and event-related brain potentials. Motivation and Emotion, 45(1), 95–102, doi: 10.1007/s11031-020-09859-x.
Shultz, S., van den Honert, R. N., Engell, A. D., & McCarthy, G. (2015). Stimulus-induced reversal of information flow through a cortical network for animacy perception. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 10(1), 129–135, doi: 10.1093/scan/nsu028.
Sun, S., Zhen, S. S., Fu, Z. Z., Wu, D. A., Shimojo, S., Adolphs, R., … Wang, S. (2017). Decision ambiguity is mediated by a late positive potential originating from cingulate cortex. Neuroimage, 157, 400–414, doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.06.003.
Terrett, G., Horner, K., White, R., Henry, J. D., Kliegel, M., Labuschagne, I., & Rendell, P. G. (2019). The relationship between episodic future thinking and prospective memory in middle childhood: Mechanisms depend on task type. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 178, 198–213, doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2018.10.003.
Wheatley, T., Weinberg, A., Looser, C., Moran, T., & Hajcak, G. (2011). Mind perception: Real but not artificial faces sustain neural activity beyond the N170/VPP. PLoS One, 6(3), e17960, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0017960.
Xiang, J. L., Tang, M., & Wang, X. D. (2022). Adaptation in face animacy perception: An event-related potential study. Neuropsychologia, 165, 108118, doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2021.108118.
Yu, Q., & Kitayama, S. (2019). Does facial action modulate neural responses of emotion? An examination with the late positive potential (LPP). Emotion, 24(2), 442–446, doi: 10.1037/emo0000717.
Zhao, J. Y., Meng, Q., An, L. C., & Wang, Y. F. (2019). An event-related potential comparison of facial expression processing between cartoon and real faces. PLoS One, 14(1), e0198868, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0198868

[1]	贾磊, 陆家豪, 王逸, 张常洁. 权力概念隐喻映射中的冲突控制：特征与过程[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2021, 19(3): 417-423.
[2]	陈衍, 江婷, 李玮, 陈取麟, 潘运, 胡思瑶. 合作中责任比较和分配评价差异的ERPs研究[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2021, 19(2): 152-159.
[3]	贺荟中, 张云翔. 信息类型和位置对儿童不同时期面孔加工的作用[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2020, 18(6): 741-748.
[4]	宋娟, 杜梦, 连涛, 张倩. 积极怀旧情绪对疼痛共情影响的ERP研究[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2020, 18(4): 466-473.
[5]	李骋诗, 白学军, 王永胜. 映射具体性和语境线索对新颖隐喻加工的影响[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2020, 18(2): 153-160.
[6]	唐丹丹, 傅瑜, 吴燕京, 朱海. 视觉空间工作记忆组间差异的神经机制[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2020, 18(2): 176-184.
[7]	曾庆, 郑希付. 高低厌恶敏感性个体对不同情绪刺激的注意时程: 来自ERP研究的证据[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2019, 17(6): 743-749.
[8]	贾丽萍, 卢国华, 宋玉萍, 李福洪. 负性情绪启动对特质焦虑个体行为抑制的影响机制[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2019, 17(5): 604-612.
[9]	宋娟, 魏艳秋, 杜梦, 解鸿宇, 连涛, 胡亚奇, 马欧. 眼部情绪信息对疼痛共情影响的ERP研究[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2019, 17(3): 326-332,347.
[10]	赵小淋, 张燕, 王建峰. 情绪对不同外倾水平个体行为抑制的影响[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2018, 16(4): 449-457.
[11]	侯娟, 侯莹莹, 陈双艺, 方晓义. 网络成瘾者工作记忆能力的ERP研究[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2018, 16(3): 384-393.
[12]	刘耀中, 刘敏, 彭滨. 任务框架和社会距离对风险决策的影响：来自ERP的证据[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2018, 16(1): 13-21.
[13]	唐丹丹, 彭微微, 杨青松, 陈安涛, 陈雪飞. 刺激冲突和反应冲突的事件相关电位特征：中顶部P3[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2018, 16(1): 31-36.
[14]	吴晓刚, 施亮, 李乐源, 潘发达. 内隐情绪加工对返回抑制效应的调节[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2017, 15(5): 619-625.
[15]	刘映杰, 刘耀中, 唐志文, 彭坚. 不当督导下员工对于奖惩的反馈：来自ERP的证据[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2015, 13(6): 823-831.