There is an ongoing debate about whether face recognition and object recognition constitute separate domains. Clarification of this issue can have important theoretical implications as face recognition is often used as a prime example of domain-specificity in mind and brain. An important source of input to this debate comes from studies of individuals with developmental prosopagnosia, suggesting that face recognition can be selectively impaired. We put the selectivity hypothesis to test by assessing the performance of 10 individuals with developmental prosopagnosia on demanding tests of visual object processing involving both regular and degraded drawings. None of the individuals exhibited a clear dissociation between face and object recognition, and as a group they were significantly more affected by degradation of objects than control participants. Importantly, we also find positive correlations between the severity of the face recognition impairment and the degree of impaired performance with degraded objects. This suggests that the face and object deficits are systematically related rather than coincidental. We conclude that at present, there is no strong evidence in the literature on developmental prosopagnosia supporting domain-specific accounts of face recognition.
43 typically-developed adults and 35 adults with ASD performed a cartoon faux pas test. Adults with ASD apparently over-detected faux pas despite good comprehension abilities, and were generally slower at responding. Signal detection analysis demonstrated that the ASD participants had significantly greater difficulty detecting whether a cartoon depicted a faux pas and showed a liberal response bias. Test item analysis demonstrated that the ASD group were not in agreement with a reference control group (n = 69) about which non-faux pas items were most difficult. These results suggest that the participants with ASD had a primary problem with faux pas detection, but that there is another factor at work, possibly compensatory, that relates to their choice of a liberal response criterion.
There is accumulating evidence suggesting that a central deficit in developmental prosopagnosia (DP), a disorder characterized by profound and lifelong difficulties with face recognition, concerns impaired holistic processing. Some of this evidence comes from studies using Navon’s paradigm where individuals with DP show a greater local or reduced global bias compared with controls. However, it has not been established what gives rise to this altered processing bias. Is it a reduced global precedence effect, changes in susceptibility to interference effects or both? By analyzing the performance of 10 individuals with DP in Navon’s paradigm we find evidence of a reduced global precedence effect: The DPs are slower than controls to process global but not local shape information. Importantly, and in contrast to previous studies, we demonstrate that the DPs perform normally in a comprehensive test of visual attention, showing normal: visual short-term memory capacity, speed of visual processing, efficiency of top-down selectivity, and allocation of attentional resources. Hence, we conclude that the reduced global precedence effect reflects a perceptual rather than an attentional deficit. We further show that this reduced global precedence effect correlates both with the DPs’ face recognition abilities, as well as their ability to recognize degraded (non-face) objects. We suggest that the DPs’ impaired performance in all three domains (Navon, face and object recognition) may be related to the same dysfunction; delayed derivation of global relative to local shape information.
The disproportionate face inversion effect (dFIE) concerns the finding that face recognition is more affected by inversion than recognition of non-face objects; an effect assumed to reflect that face recognition relies on special operations. Support for this notion comes from studies showing that face processing in developmental prosopagnosia (DP) is less affected by inversion than it is in normal subjects, and that DPs may even display face inversion superiority effects, i.e. better processing of inverted compared to upright faces. To date, however, there are no reports of direct comparisons between inversion effects for faces and objects, investigating whether the altered inversion effect in DP is specific to faces. We examined this question by comparing inversion effects for faces and cars in two otherwise identical recognition tasks in a group of DPs (N = 16) and a matched control group, using a case series design. Although both groups showed inversion effects for both faces and cars, only the control group exhibited a significant dFIE, i.e. a larger inversion effect for faces than cars. In comparison, the DPs were not significantly more affected by inversion than the control group when assessed with a face processing task that did not require recognition. Importantly, in both settings the DPs are better with upright than with inverted faces, and on the individual level no DP was found to perform significantly better with inverted than with upright faces. In fact, the DPs are impaired relative to the control group with both upright and inverted faces and to a less extent also with upright and inverted cars. These results yield no evidence of inversion superiority in DP but rather suggest that their face recognition problem is not limited to operations specialized for upright faces.
Adult developmental prosopagnosics read as quickly and fluently as controls, while they are seemingly unable to learn efficient strategies for recognizing faces. We suggest that this is due to the differing demands that face and word recognition put on the perceptual system. (PsycINFO Database Record
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.