the emotion expressed by the faces (integral priming). Neural Correlates of Integral and Separable Processing During Cat
Neural Correlates of Integral and Separable Processing During Category Learning Catherine Hanson Stephen José Hanson Tara Schweighardt Rutgers University, Newark, NJ Introduction Categorization is a fundamental cognitive function imposing order on stimuli; whether objects or actions, sights or sounds. Crucial to the ability to categorize is the ability to selectively attend to the relevant attributes of the tobecategorized input. Garner (1974) used the term perceptual structure to describe the way dimensions of a stimulus combine perceptually. Factors such as sensory constraints, development, or learning can affect whether attributes are integrally related, i.e., correlated, or separably related, i.e., seen as distinct dimensions. Attributes that are integrally related form a single percept. Separable attributes remain distinct and the percept is of a collection of attributes. Developmentally, integral processing has been shown to proceed the onset of separable processing (Smith, 1989) and adults can be biased smoothly towards either type of processing depending on category structure. In addition to the properties of the input, it is important to consider factors that may influence how the observer uses those properties during category learning. This study has two goals. First, to explore how strategy or attentional set interacts with stimulus dimensions of face stimuli during categorization. Second, to examine the neural correlates associated with processing categories that mediate the seamless switching between these two types of attentional processing.
Method Scanning was done on a Siemens Allegra 3T system. Stimuli were rear projected onto a mirror in the head cage. Responses were recorded with an MRI compatible button box. Subjects were normal, healthy adults.
that covaried (integral task). Subjects categorized the entire set of faces three times; i.e., there were three categorization blocks. 0
0.1
0.2
0.3
Eye Separation 0.4 0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
Eye Separation 0.4 0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0.1 es.3,ml.1 es.4,ml.1 es.5,ml.1 es.6,ml.1 es.7,ml.1 es.8,ml.1 es.9,ml.1 es1,ml.1
0.1 es.1,ml.1 es.2,ml.1 es.3,ml.1 es.4,ml.1
es.7,ml.1 es.8,ml.1 es.9,ml.1 es1,ml.1
es.4,ml.2 es.5,ml.2 es.6,ml.2 es.7,ml.2 es.8,ml.2 es.9,ml.2 es1,ml.2
0.2 es.1,ml.2 es.2,ml.2 es.3,ml.2 es.4,ml.2
es.7,ml.2 es.8,ml.2 es.9,ml.2 es1,ml.2
es.5,ml.3 es.6,ml.3 es.7,ml.3 es.8,ml.3 es.9,ml.3 es1,ml.3
0.3 es.1,ml.3 es.2,ml.3 es.3,ml.3 es.4,ml.3
es.7,ml.3 es.8,ml.3 es.9,ml.3 es1,ml.3
0.4 es.1,ml.4 es.2,ml.4 es.3,ml.4 es.4,ml.4
es.7,ml.4 es.8,ml.4 es.9,ml.4 es1,ml.4
0.5 es.1,ml.5 es.2,ml.5 es.3,ml.5 es.4,ml.5
es.7,ml.5 es.8,ml.5 es.9,ml.5 es1,ml.5
0.6 es.1,ml.6 es.2,ml.6 es.3,ml.6 es.4,ml.6
es.7,ml.6 es.8,ml.6 es.9,ml.6 es1,ml.6
0.7 es.1,ml.7 es.2,ml.7 es.3,ml.7 es.4,ml.7
es.7,ml.7 es.8,ml.7 es.9,ml.7 es1,ml.7
0.8 es.1,ml.8 es.2,ml.8 es.3,ml.8 es.4,ml.8
es.7,ml.8 es.8,ml.8 es.9,ml.8 es1,ml.8
0.9 es.1,ml.9 es.2,ml.9 es.3,ml.9 es.4,ml.9
es.7,ml.9 es.8,ml.9 es.9,ml.9 es1,ml.9
1 es.1,ml1 es.2,ml1 es.3,ml1 es.4,ml1
es.7,ml1 es.8,ml1 es.9,ml1 es1,ml1
0.2
0.3 es.1,ml.3
M o u t h
0.4
M o u t h
es.1,ml.4 es.2,ml.4
es.6,ml.4 es.7,ml.4 es.8,ml.4 es.9,ml.4 es1,ml.4
0.5 es.1,ml.5 es.2,ml.5 es.3,ml.5
L o c a t i o n
L o c a t i o n
es.7,ml.5 es.8,ml.5 es.9,ml.5 es1,ml.5
0.6 es.1,ml.6 es.2,ml.6 es.3,ml.6 es.4,ml.6
es.8,ml.6 es.9,ml.6 es1,ml.6
0.7 es.1,ml.7 es.2,ml.7 es.3,ml.7 es.4,ml.7 es.5,ml.7
es.9,ml.7 es1,ml.7
0.8 es.1,ml.8 es.2,ml.8 es.3,ml.8 es.4,ml.8 es.5,ml.8 es.6,ml.8
es1,ml.8
0.9 es.1,ml.9 es.2,ml.9 es.3,ml.9 es.4,ml.9 es.5,ml.9 es.6,ml.9 es.7,ml.9 1 es.1,ml1 es.2,ml1 es.3,ml1 es.4,ml1 es.5,ml1 es.6,ml1 es.7,ml1 es.8,ml1
Filtration Task (separablel)
Condensation Task (integral)
Results Behavioral Data Forty subjects performed the judgement and categorization tasks outside of the magnet. An analysis of the correct response times during categorizataion yielded a significant main effect for Categorization Task, F(1, 68) = 7.43, p
