Face Matching Impairment in Developmental Prosopagnosia

Abstract

Developmental prosopagnosia (DP) is commonly referred to as Ôface blindnessÕ, a term that implies a perceptual basis to the condition. However, DP presents as a deficit in face recognition and is diagnosed using memory-based tasks. Here, we test face identification ability in six people with DP, who are severely impaired on face memory tasks, using tasks that do not rely on memory. First, we compared DP to control participants on a standardised test of unfamiliar face matching using facial images taken on the same day and under standardised studio conditions (Glasgow Face Matching Test; GFMT). DP participants did not differ from normative accuracy scores on the GFMT. Second, we tested face matching performance on a test created using images that were sourced from the Internet and so vary substantially due to changes in viewing conditions and in a personÕs appearance (Local Heroes Test;LHT). DP participants show significantly poorer matching accuracy on the LHT relative to control participants, for both unfamiliar and familiar face matching.Interestingly, this deficit is specific to ÔmatchÕ trials, suggesting that people with DP may have particular difficulty in matching images of the same person that contain natural day-to-day variations in appearance. We discuss these results in the broader context of individual differences in face matching ability. KEYWORDS face perception; face recognition; congenital prosopagnosia; image variability; unfamiliar face matching.

The Kent Face Matching Test

“…However, these three tests are unified on the basis that all focus on the identity processing of unfamiliar faces. The CFMT and CFPT have been used widely and are typically employed to assess impairments in face processing (see, e.g., Bobak, Parris, Gregory, Bennetts, & Bate, 2017;Ulrich et al, 2017;White et al, 2017), as well as superior recognition ability (Bobak, Hancock, & Bate, 2016;Bobak, Parris, et al, 2017;Russell, Duchaine, & Nakayama, 2009). Thus, the CFMT and CFPT provide suitable tests against which performance in the KFMT can be compared.…”

“…The GFMT has already featured in over 30 face‐matching studies to investigate how performance is impacted by factors such as time pressure (Bindemann, Fysh, Cross, & Watts, ), mismatch prevalence (Bindemann, Avetisyan, & Blackwell, ), sleep deprivation (Beattie, Walsh, McLaren, Biello, & White, ), image quality (Bindemann, Attard, Leach, & Johnston, ; Strathie & McNeill, ), and performance‐related feedback (Alenezi & Bindemann, ; White, Kemp, Jenkins, & Burton, ). Moreover, this task has been administered not only to students, but also to non‐students (Bobak, Dowsett, & Bate, ; White, Rivolta, Burton, Al‐Janabi, & Palermo, ), forensic experts (White, Phillips, Hahn, Hill, & O'Toole, ), police officers (Robertson, Noyes, Dowsett, Jenkins, & Burton, ), and passport officers (White, Kemp, Jenkins, Matheson, & Burton, ).…”

Normative data for two tests of face matching under ecological conditions

“…Contrariwise, here we considered both accuracy and RTs. Aiming to account for the "pedestrian notion" of speedaccuracy trade-offs (Heitz, 2014, p.1; see also Luce, 1986), which can be found in healthy as well abnormal populations (Marotta et al, 2002;Tarr, 2003;Behrmann, Avidan, Marotta, & Kimchi, 2005;Herzmann, Danthiir, Schacht, Sommer, & Wilhelm, 2008;Ramon & Rossion, 2010;Ramon et al, 2010;Biotti et al, 2017;White et al, 2017;Geskin & Behrmann, 2018) and may vary across age (Hildebrandt, Herzmann, Sommer & Wilhelm, 2010), analyses were performed on a composite scores encapsulating both measures. Thus, alongside providing normative data for the YBT and FICST, their respective value was assessed relative to tests that have been previously used as "standard screening" tests (Noyes et al, 2018;Bobak et al, 2016b) of individual face processing skill.…”

“…As discussed below (see Analyses), we deem consideration of both accuracy and RTs at the individual level (as opposed to merely the group level; e.g. White et al, 2017) especially relevant when aiming to provide normative data from a large and heterogenous sample against which individual performance can be reliably compared.…”

“…recognition tasksmore likely to display speed-accuracy trade-offs. Even highly impaired prosopagnosic individuals can achieve accurate performance at the expense of vastly prolonged RTs, which is why it is common practice to take into account RTs in studies of both healthy and impaired individuals (e.g., Marotta et al, 2002;Tarr, 2003;Behrmann et al, 2005;Biotti et al, 2017;Lao, Vizioli, & Caldara, 2013;White et al, 2017). Indeed, according to many, "the notion of speed-accuracy tradeoff (SAT) is pedestrian" (Heitz, 2014, p.1; see also Luce, 1986).…”