Prospagnosia
Terms
undefined, object
copy deck
- Damasio et al 1985
- damage to face template system, but not eplain problems in general face perception
- de Renzi et al 1986
- cant recog familiar but can tell diference between foreign coins, siamese cats and own objects
- Burton and Young, 1986
- first sugested a recog model in which processing of soc imp factors such as lip move etc are seperate from face recog system
- de Haan et al 1987
- did interference test, same/difference, and learning names and found imp - did PDP model and learn face and names therefore like covert and overt in same system
- young 1988
- faces and animals are different systems
- young and hellawell 1988
- learnt pairs and suggested fru and pin were disconnected
- young and dehaan, 1988
- is name familiar with face/name ptimes
- newcombe et al 1989
- ms without familiarity or covert recog.
- Farah 1990
- animals are harder and usually damage to the rh or bi
- burton et al 1990
- made an iac model of bruce and young 1986 model and showed that it explained id priming, sem priming and distinctiveness and added siu
- burton et al 1991
- lesioned so less connections between fru and pin got sem, id and interference probs in prosos - also explain me who couldnt get sem info
- campbell et al 1992
- had dev prosopagnosia, said structural encoding unit had not dev because no recog plus no perception, and could only do gud at task like real face because intact areas which looked at features individually or at clothes etc plus still had access to sem info thru faces
- Young et al. 1993
- 2 capgras patients who had trouble with face perecept and recog emo
- Neil and warrington, 1993
- sheep
- Farah et al, 1993
- leisoned pdp so hidden and face, then retaught face, name occu but for 50% not known vs unknown and found quite good learning for known and crap for unknown therefore residual knowledge, processes
- deRenzi et al, 1994
- mri, pet and ct and damdge to rh side - in specific places
- Burton and Young, 1999
- model is best becuse accounts for more
- Ellis et al, 2000
- capgras have no prob in recog tasks like priming and interference but no emo experience
- Warrington and James 1967
- suggest that latencies are due to general brain damage and not cause of specific perception problem
- Gloning 1970
- suggested that recog was intact but retreival failure
- damasio et al 1972
- car makes hard to distinguish, therefore problem with within subject
- shuttleworth et al 1972
- general perception and memory problems
- Benton and Van Allen, 1982
- showed that familiarity was crap but could decide if tow face same, therefore peception ok
- Bruyer et al 1983
- in mild proso showed autonomic reaction to known faces
- Bauer 1984
- showed autonomic recation, guilty knowledge - therefore to neurologically distinct information pro rutes, with ventral for specific memory and id of faces and dorsal for general arousal and orientation to motivationnaly significant stimuli
- Desimone et al, 1984
- about 30% of sts cells preference for faces, and in macaques respond to inverted which can recog
- Assall et al, 1984
- recog humans not cows