What Evidence Supports Special Processing for Faces? A Cautionary Tale for fMRI Interpretation

Rosemary A. Cowell,Garrison W. Cottrell
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00448
2013-11-01
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
Abstract:Abstract We trained a neurocomputational model on six categories of photographic images that were used in a previous fMRI study of object and face processing. Multivariate pattern analyses of the activations elicited in the object-encoding layer of the model yielded results consistent with two previous, contradictory fMRI studies. Findings from one of the studies [Haxby, J. V., Gobbini, M. I., Furey, M. L., Ishai, A., Schouten, J. L., & Pietrini, P. Distributed and overlapping representations of faces and objects in ventral temporal cortex. Science, 293, 2425–2430, 2001] were interpreted as evidence for the object-form topography model. Findings from the other study [Spiridon, M., & Kanwisher, N. How distributed is visual category information in human occipito-temporal cortex? An fMRI study. Neuron, 35, 1157–1165, 2002] were interpreted as evidence for neural processing mechanisms in the fusiform face area that are specialized for faces. Because the model contains no special processing mechanism or specialized architecture for faces and yet it can reproduce the fMRI findings used to support the claim that there are specialized face-processing neurons, we argue that these fMRI results do not actually support that claim. Results from our neurocomputational model therefore constitute a cautionary tale for the interpretation of fMRI data.
psychology, experimental,neurosciences
What problem does this paper attempt to address?