Anna Nowicka

The self-face is processed differently than emotional faces. A question arises whether other highly familiar and subjectively significant non-self faces (e.g. partner’s face) are also differentiated from emotional faces. The aim of this event-related potential (ERP) study was to investigate the neural correlates of personally-relevant faces (the self and a close-other’s) as well as emotionally positive (happy) and neutral faces. Participants were tasked with the simple detection of faces. Amplitudes of N170 were more negative in the right than in the left hemisphere and were not modulated by type of face. A similar pattern of N2 and P3 results for the self-face and close-other’s face was observed: they were associated with decreased N2 and increased P3 relative to happy and neutral faces. However, the self-face was preferentially processed also when compared to a close-other’s face as revealed by lower N2 and higher P3 amplitudes. Nonparametric cluster-based permutation tests showed an analogous pattern of results: significant clusters for the self-face compared with all other faces (close-other’s, happy, neutral) and for close-other’s face compared to happy and neutral faces. In summary, the self-face prioritization was observed, as indicated by significant differences between one’s own face and all other faces. Crucially, both types of personally-relevant faces differed from happy faces. These findings point to the pivotal role of subjective evaluation of the saliency factor.

The preferential processing of self-related information is thought to be driven by its high level of familiarity. However, some behavioral studies have shown that people may exhibit a preference for initially unfamiliar stimuli that have been associated with themselves arbitrarily. One of the key questions that needs to be addressed concerns the role of early attention in the prioritization of newly acquired information associated with the self. Another question is whether both highly familiar as well as new information referring to a subjectively significant person (i.e. close-other) benefits from preferential attentional processing. We aimed to tackle both questions by investigating the neural mechanisms involved in processing extremely familiar stimuli, like one’s own face or the face of a close-other, as well as stimuli (abstract shapes) that were newly linked to each person. We used a dot-probe paradigm that allowed us to investigate the early stages of attentional prioritization. Our analysis of the N2pc component unveiled that attention was automatically captured by the self-face, a shape associated with oneself, and the face of the close person. However, a shape associated with the close-other did not elicit the same attentional response, as the N2pc was absent. Thus, both the self-face and information referring to the extended self (self-assigned shape, close-other’s face) benefit from preferential early and automatic attentional processing.

Prioritization of self-related information (e.g. self-face) may be driven by its extreme familiarity. Nevertheless, the findings of numerous behavioral studies reported a self-preference for initially unfamiliar information, arbitrarily associated with the self. In the current study, we investigated the neural underpinnings of extremely familiar stimuli (self-face, close-other’s face) and stimuli newly assigned to one’s own person and to a close-other (abstract shapes). Control conditions consisted of unknown faces and unknown abstract shapes. Reaction times (RTs) to the self-face were shorter than to close-other’s and unknown faces, whereas no RTs differences were observed for shapes. P3 amplitude to the self-face was larger than to close-other’s and unknown faces. Nonparametric cluster-based permutation tests showed significant clusters for the self-face vs. other (close-other’s, unknown) faces. However, in the case of shapes P3 amplitudes to the self-assigned shape and to the shape assigned to a close-other were similar, and both were larger than P3 to unknown shapes. No cluster was detected for the self-assigned shape when compared with the shape assigned to the close-other. Thus, our findings revealed preferential attentional processing of the self-face and the similar allocation of attentional resources to shapes assigned to the self and a close-other.

The image of one’s own face is a particularly distinctive feature of the self. The self-face differs from other faces not only in respect of its familiarity but also in respect of its subjective emotional significance and saliency. The current study aimed at elucidating similarities/dissimilarities between processing of one’s own face and emotional faces: happy faces (based on the self-positive bias) and fearful faces (because of their high perceptual saliency, a feature shared with self-face). Electroencephalogram data were collected in the group of 30 participants who performed a simple detection task. Event-related potential analyses indicated significantly increased P3 and late positive potential amplitudes to the self-face in comparison to all other faces: fearful, happy and neutral. Permutation tests confirmed the differences between the self-face and all three types of other faces for numerous electrode sites and in broad time windows. Representational similarity analysis, in turn, revealed distinct processing of the self-face and did not provide any evidence in favour of similarities between the self-face and emotional (either negative or positive) faces. These findings strongly suggest that the self-face processing do not resemble those of emotional faces, thus implying that prioritized self-referential processing is driven by the subjective relevance of one’s own face.

It is well established that stimuli representing or associated with ourselves, like our own name or an image of our own face, benefit from preferential processing. However, two key questions concerning the self‐prioritization mechanism remain to be addressed. First, does it operate in an automatic manner during the early processing, or rather in a more controlled fashion at later processing stages? Second, is it specific to the self‐related stimuli, or can it be activated also by other stimuli that are familiar or salient? We conducted a dot‐probe experiment to investigate the mechanism behind the attentional prioritization of the self‐face image and to tackle both questions. The former, by employing a backwards masking procedure to isolate the early and preconscious processing stages. The latter, by investigating whether a face that becomes visually familiar due to repeated presentations is able to capture attention in a similar manner as the self‐face. Analysis of the N2pc ERP component revealed that the self‐face image automatically captures attention, both when processed consciously and unconsciously. In contrast, the visually familiar face did not attract attention, neither in the conscious, nor in the unconscious condition. We conclude that the self‐prioritization mechanism is early and automatic, and is not triggered by mere visual familiarity. More generally, our results provide further evidence for efficient unconscious processing of faces, and for dissociation between attention and consciousness.

Visual objects are typically perceived as parts of an entire visual scene, and the scene’s context provides information crucial in the object recognition process. Fundamental insights into the mechanisms of context-object integration have come from research on semantically incongruent objects, which are defined as objects with a very low probability of occurring in a given context. However, the role of attention in processing of the context-object mismatch remains unclear, with some studies providing evidence in favor, but other against an automatic capture of attention by incongruent objects. Therefore, in the present study, 25 subjects completed a dot-probe task, in which pairs of scenes—congruent and incongruent or neutral and threatening—were presented as task-irrelevant distractors. Importantly, threatening scenes are known to robustly capture attention and thus were included in the present study to provide a context for interpretation of results regarding incongruent scenes. Using N2 posterior-contralateral ERP component as a primary measure, we revealed that threatening images indeed capture attention automatically and rapidly, but semantically incongruent scenes do not benefit from an automatic attentional selection. Thus, our results suggest that identification of the context-object mismatch is not preattentive.

A key mechanism behind preferential processing of self-related information might be an early and automatic capture of attention. Therefore, the present study tested a hypothesis that one’s own face will attract bottom-up attention even without conscious identification. To test this, we used a dot-probe paradigm with electrophysiological recordings, in which participants (N = 18) viewed masked and unmasked pairs of faces (other, self) presented laterally. Analysis of the sensitivity measure d ′ indicated that faces were not consciously identified in the masked condition. A clear N2 posterior-contralateral (N2pc) component (a neural marker of attention shifts) was found in both the masked and unmasked conditions, revealing that one’s own face automatically captures attention when processed unconsciously. Therefore, our study (a) demonstrates that self-related information is boosted at an early (preconscious) stage of processing, (b) identifies further features (beyond simple physical ones) that cause automatic attention capture, and (c) provides further evidence for the dissociative nature of attention and consciousness.