What mechanisms underlie facial expression recognition? A popular hypothesis holds that efficient facial expression recognition cannot be achieved by visual analysis alone but additionally requires a mechanism of motor simulation — an unconscious, covert imitation of the observed facial postures and movements. Here, we first discuss why this hypothesis does not necessarily follow from extant empirical evidence. Next, we report experimental evidence against the central premise of this view: we demonstrate that individuals can achieve normotypical efficient facial expression recognition despite a congenital absence of relevant facial motor representations and, therefore, unaided by motor simulation. This underscores the need to reconsider the role of motor simulation in facial expression recognition.
Data and stimulus materials are publicly available and can be accessed on the Open Science Framework platform (https://osf.io/8t4fv/?view_only=85c15cafe5d94bb6a5cff2f09a6ef56d)
Data from: Efficient recognition of facial expressions does not require motor simulationOpen Science Framework, DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/8T4FV.
- Alfonso Caramazza
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.
Human subjects: The study was approved by the local Ethical committee at UCLouvain (Registration # B403201629166). Written informed consents were obtained from all participants prior to the study, and after the nature and possible consequences of the studies were explained.
- Richard B Ivry, University of California, Berkeley, United States
© 2020, Vannuscorps et al.
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.
Neurotransmitter-filled synaptic vesicles (SVs) mediate synaptic transmission and are a hallmark specialization in neuronal axons. Yet, how SV proteins are sorted to presynaptic nerve terminals remains the subject of debate. The leading model posits that these proteins are randomly trafficked throughout neurons and are selectively retained in presynaptic boutons. Here, we used the RUSH (retention using selective hooks) system, in conjunction with HaloTag labeling approaches, to study the egress of two distinct transmembrane SV proteins, synaptotagmin 1 and synaptobrevin 2, from the soma of mature cultured rat and mouse neurons. For these studies, the SV reporter constructs were expressed at carefully controlled, very low levels. In sharp contrast to the selective retention model, both proteins selectively and specifically entered axons with minimal entry into dendrites. However, even moderate overexpression resulted in the spillover of SV proteins into dendrites, potentially explaining the origin of previous non-polarized transport models, revealing the limited, saturable nature of the direct axonal trafficking pathway. Moreover, we observed that SV constituents were first delivered to the presynaptic plasma membrane before incorporation into SVs. These experiments reveal a new-found membrane trafficking pathway, for SV proteins, in classically polarized mammalian neurons and provide a glimpse at the first steps of SV biogenesis.
Human agents build models of their environment, which enable them to anticipate and plan upcoming events. However, little is known about the properties of such predictive models. Recently, it has been proposed that hippocampal representations take the form of a predictive map-like structure, the so-called successor representation (SR). Here, we used human functional magnetic resonance imaging to probe whether activity in the early visual cortex (V1) and hippocampus adhere to the postulated properties of the SR after visual sequence learning. Participants were exposed to an arbitrary spatiotemporal sequence consisting of four items (A-B-C-D). We found that after repeated exposure to the sequence, merely presenting single sequence items (e.g., - B - -) resulted in V1 activation at the successor locations of the full sequence (e.g., C-D), but not at the predecessor locations (e.g., A). This highlights that visual representations are skewed toward future states, in line with the SR. Similar results were also found in the hippocampus. Moreover, the hippocampus developed a coactivation profile that showed sensitivity to the temporal distance in sequence space, with fading representations for sequence events in the more distant past and future. V1, in contrast, showed a coactivation profile that was only sensitive to spatial distance in stimulus space. Taken together, these results provide empirical evidence for the proposition that both visual and hippocampal cortex represent a predictive map of the visual world akin to the SR.