2013
DOI: 10.1080/17470919.2013.795189
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Minor structural abnormalities in the infant face disrupt neural processing: A unique window into early caregiving responses

Abstract: Infant faces elicit early, specific activity in the orbitofrontal cortex (OFC), a key cortical region for reward and affective processing. A test of the causal relationship between infant facial configuration and OFC activity is provided by naturally occurring disruptions to the face structure. One such disruption is cleft lip, a small change to one facial feature, shown to disrupt parenting. Using magnetoencephalography, we investigated neural responses to infant faces with cleft lip compared with typical inf… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

10
70
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

2
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 47 publications
(80 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
10
70
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In two separate MEG studies of responses to infant facial stimuli, we observed rapid differential activity in the OFC in response to images of infant and adult faces [93,94]. Occurring at around 130 ms post-stimulus presentation, this differential processing is in line with the affective prediction hypothesis and is most likely pre-conscious in nature [95].…”
Section: An Early Role For the Ofc In Salience Detection Of Infant Cuessupporting
confidence: 68%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…In two separate MEG studies of responses to infant facial stimuli, we observed rapid differential activity in the OFC in response to images of infant and adult faces [93,94]. Occurring at around 130 ms post-stimulus presentation, this differential processing is in line with the affective prediction hypothesis and is most likely pre-conscious in nature [95].…”
Section: An Early Role For the Ofc In Salience Detection Of Infant Cuessupporting
confidence: 68%
“…Occurring at around 130 ms post-stimulus presentation, this differential processing is in line with the affective prediction hypothesis and is most likely pre-conscious in nature [95]. In the second of these studies, we additionally demonstrated that early OFC responses to infant faces were disrupted by the presence of a minor facial abnormality [cleft lip; [94]]. This suggests that the specific configuration of infant facial features is critical for eliciting such early neural responses.…”
Section: An Early Role For the Ofc In Salience Detection Of Infant Cuessupporting
confidence: 60%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The availability of such information means that the stimuli can be used for many different purposes, dependent on experimenter requirements. For instance, the sounds have already been used to examine the neural processing of infant cues (Parsons et al, 2013a,b), detection of functionally important physical characteristics of vocalizations (Young et al, 2012) and movement in response to sound salience (Parsons et al, 2012). Other possibilities include investigation of physiological responses to the sound categories (e.g., infant sounds) or to the specific dimensions (e.g., high arousal sounds) independent of category.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Subtracting activity from ERPs in response to adult faces from ERPs in response to infant faces, they found that the main sources of activation were likely generated by the left and right medial occipital/fusiform gyrus, the right uncus, the right medial orbito frontal gyrus, and the anterior cingulate cortex, which is consistent with fMRI studies that implicate these regions in parenting (Rutherford, Potenza, & Mayes, 2013). These findings suggest some promise in understanding potential neural generators of EEG as it relates to infant cue perception, though this question of which brain regions are recruited during processing of infant stimuli may be better served by techniques with either higher spatial resolution (e.g., fMRI) or with strengths in spatial as well as temporal resolution (e.g., magnetoencephalography or MEG; Kringelbach et al, 2008; Parsons et al, 2013). …”
Section: Limitationsmentioning
confidence: 99%