Cited by 207Face Recognition and PerceptionVisual perception and processing mechanismsReading and Literacy Development

Dynamics of visual feature analysis and object-level processing in face versus letter-string perception

Tarkiainen, A., Cornelissen, P. L., Salmelin, R.·2002·Brain

Abstract

Neurones in the human inferior occipitotemporal cortex respond to specific categories of images, such as numbers, letters and faces, within 150-200 ms. Here we identify the locus in time when stimulus-specific analysis emerges by comparing the dynamics of face and letter-string perception in the same 10 individuals. An ideal paradigm was provided by our previous study on letter-strings, in which noise-masking of stimuli revealed putative visual feature processing at 100 ms around the occipital midline followed by letter-string-specific activation at 150 ms in the left inferior occipitotemporal cortex. In the present study, noise-masking of cartoon-like faces revealed that the response at 100 ms increased linearly with the visual complexity of the images, a result that was similar for faces and letter-strings. By 150 ms, faces and letter-strings had entered their own stimulus-specific processing routes in the inferior occipitotemporal cortex, with identical timing and large spatial overlap. However, letter-string analysis lateralized to the left hemisphere, whereas face processing occurred more bilaterally or with right-hemisphere preponderance. The inferior occipitotemporal activations at approximately 150 ms, which take place after the visual feature analysis at approximately 100 ms, are likely to represent a general object-level analysis stage that acts as a rapid gateway to higher cognitive processing.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/brain/awf112

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • MEG and intracranial electrical recordings provide increasingly specific localization information that is consistent with the fMRI findings for the VWFA.

    “Similar results have also been found with magneto-encephalography (MEG) [14,15] and intracranial electrical recordings [16] that provide increasingly specific localization information that is consistent with the fMRI findings for the VWFA.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tarkiainen, A., Cornelissen, P. L., & Salmelin, R.
Affiliations
Newcastle University (GB)
Corresponding author
Tarkiainen, A.
Venue
Brain
Published
2002-05
Volume
125
Issue
5
Pages
1125-1136
ISSN
  • 0006-8950 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2156
OpenAlex
W2169247405
Cited by
207
References
34
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 13
FWCI
6.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Brain (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Wellcome Trust
  • European Commission
  • Academy of Finland
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Face Recognition and Perception
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
Keywords
face perception, hemispheric lateralization, visual complexity, noise masking, face-selective neurons
MeSH terms
Acoustic Stimulation, Adult, Analysis of Variance, Face, Female, Humans, Male, Occipital Lobe, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Photic Stimulation, Reading, Temporal Lobe, 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