Faces and words are traditionally assumed to be independently processed. Dyslexia is also traditionally thought to be a non-visual deficit. Counter to both ideas, face perception deficits in dyslexia have been reported. Others report no such deficits. We sought to resolve this discrepancy. 60 adults participated in the study (24 dyslexic, 36 typical readers). Feature-based processing and configural or global form processing of faces was measured with a face matching task. Opposite laterality effects in these tasks, dependent on left–right orientation of faces, supported that they tapped into separable visual mechanisms. Dyslexic readers tended to be poorer than typical readers at feature-based face matching while no differences were found for global form face matching. We conclude that word and face perception are associated when the latter requires the processing of visual features of a face, while processing the global form of faces apparently shares minimal—if any—resources with visual word processing. The current results indicate that visual word and face processing are both associated and dissociated—but this depends on what visual mechanisms are task-relevant. We suggest that reading deficits could stem from multiple factors, and that one such factor is a problem with feature-based processing of visual objects.

Faces and words are traditionally assumed to be independently processed. Dyslexia is also traditionally thought to be a non-visual deficit. Counter to both ideas, face perception deficits in dyslexia have been reported. Others report no such deficits. We sought to resolve this discrepancy.60 adults participated in the study (24 dyslexic and 36 typical readers). Feature-based processing and configural or global form processing of faces was measured with a face matching task. Participants additionally performed visual conjunction search, thought to be attentionally demanding, and visual feature search. Dyslexic readers tended to be poorer than typical readers at feature-based face matching while no differences were found for global form face matching. Opposite laterality effects in these tasks, dependent on left-right orientation of faces, further supported that they tapped into different mechanisms. Reading problems were also associated with slower search, especially conjunction search, but search difficulties could not account for face matching problems.We conclude that word and face perception are associated when the latter requires the processing of visual features of a face, while processing the global form of faces apparently shares minimal – if any – resources with visual word processing. The current results indicate that visual word and face processing are both associated and dissociated – but this depends on what visual mechanisms are task-relevant. We suggest that reading deficits could stem from multiple factors, and that one such factor is a specific problem with feature-based processing of visual objects.

No abstract