Cited by 76Face Recognition and PerceptionVisual perception and processing mechanismsFace recognition and analysis

Repetition suppression to faces in the fusiform face area: A personal and dynamic journey

Open access
Henson, Richard N.·2016·Cortex

Abstract

I review a number of fMRI studies that investigate the effects of repeating faces on responses in the fusiform face area (FFA). These studies show that repetition suppression (RS), as well as repetition enhancement (RE), are sensitive to multiple factors, including pre-existing stimulus representations, cognitive task, lag between repetitions and spatial attention. Parallel EEG studies provide additional constraints on the timing of these repetition effects. Together, the results suggest that RS is not a unitary phenomenon, but likely subsumes multiple mechanisms that operate under different conditions. These mechanisms of course need to relate to single-cell data and known physiological mechanisms; but to make further progress, I believe we need dynamical neural network models that relate these mechanisms to the properties of neural populations that are measured by fMRI and EEG data. One example model is sketched, in which RS reflects an acceleration of neural dynamics, owing to reduced prediction error within a recurrent visual processing hierarchy.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cortex.2015.09.012

Cites

53 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Henson, R., & Friston, K. (2006). Neural network model of repetition suppression using dynamic expectation Maximisation. In Human brain mapping conference 2006.
  2. Henson, R., Ross, E., Rylands, A., Vuilleumier, P., & Rugg, M. (2004). ERP and fMRI effects of lag on priming for familiar and unfamiliar faces. In Human brain mapping conference 2004.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Henson, R. N.
Affiliations
MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit (GB)
Corresponding author
Henson, Richard N.
Venue
Cortex
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-07
Volume
80
Pages
174-184
ISSN
0010-9452 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2136756960
Cited by
76
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 1
FWCI
0.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cortex (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Apollo (cc-by)
Funders
UK Medical Research Council (MC_US_A060_0046)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Face Recognition and Perception
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Face recognition and analysis
Keywords
repetition suppression, repetition enhancement, fusiform face area, face processing, face recognition (cognition), spatial attention, prediction error, recurrent neural networks, neural dynamics, hierarchical visual processing, functional MRI
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Physiological, Attention, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Probability, Visual Cortex, Visual Perception

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review