Comparing the sensitivity of face matching assessments to detect face perception deficits

Abstract

Numerous neurological, developmental, and psychiatric conditions demonstrate impaired face recognition abilities, which can be socially debilitating. These impairments could be caused by either deficient face perceptual processes, such as reduced ability to integrate face parts into a whole, or deficient face memory processes, such as reduced ability to associate a face with semantic information. Research and clinical practice have focused more on developing face memory assessments, while it currently remains unclear which face perception assessments best captures perceptual deficits. A validated face perception measure could not only help with diagnosing the causes of face recognition deficits but could also help determine the most appropriate treatment. Here, we compare several available face perception assessments to identify those that can best assess perception deficits in developmental prosopagnosics. Thirty prosopagnosics and thirty age-matched neurotypical controls completed a battery of four face perception assessments, namely, computerized Benton Face Recognition Test, Cambridge Face Perception Test, University of Southern California Face Perception Test, and Telling Faces Together Test. They were also evaluated on two face recognition/ memory measures- Cambridge face memory test and famous faces memory test. We used logistic regression for the perception tests to predict prosopagnosic vs. control group membership and used multiple linear regressions to predict continuous objective and subjective measures of face recognition memory. Our results show that the Benton face test was the most reliable (α = 0.74), sensitive (AUC= 0.83), and predictive assessment of prosopagnosia diagnosis and face memory performance across the groups. The Cambridge face perception test also performed adequately well in terms of test sensitivity (AUC=0.80) and predicted face memory performance across the groups. Further, we found that face lighting change trials better predicted DP group membership and face recognition abilities than viewpoint-change trials. Together, these results have direct clinical application in assessing populations with face processing difficulties.

Face Perception Deficits in Developmental Prosopagnosia

“…Consistent with a recent study (Mishra et al, 2020; but see Duchaine & Nakayama, 2004), this finding suggests that face perception deficits in developmental prosopagnosia may originate in early stages of face processing, before image-invariant representations are extracted, but more systematic research is needed.…”

“…The BFRT is a standardised, widely used paper-based test that was originally developed for clinical evaluations of various neuropsychological conditions (e.g., Benton, 1980;Benton et al, 1994). More recently, the BFRT has been used in developmental prosopagnosia research (e.g., Huis in't Veld, 2012;Mishra et al, 2020; for a comprehensive list see Table A1 in Appendix A). Several normative data for the BFRT have been published (Albonico et al, 2017;Benton et al, 1994;Rossion & Michel, 2018;Wang et al, 2020), including for the computer-based version (Rossion & Michel, 2018).…”

“…The results are mixed. In terms of the scope or prevalence of face perception deficits, estimates vary from a minority of the sample (Duchaine & Nakayama, 2004;Mishra et al, 2020;Stumps et al, 2020;Ulrich et al, 2017), to around half (Bate et al, 2019b;Dalrymple et al, 2014;White et al, 2017) to most of the sample (Biotti et al, 2019;Djouab et al, 2020; Huis in't Veld et al, 2012). In terms of severity, most studies conclude that face perception deficits are smaller in magnitude compared to face memory deficits (Stumps et al, 2020;Ulrich et al, 2017) but as I argue below, this conclusion is methodologically flawed.…”

“…Good face perception is required for good face memory, but surprisingly little is known about face perception in developmental prosopagnosia. A few recent studies suggest that face perception deficits may be quite common in developmental prosopagnosia (Biotti et al, 2019;Mishra et al, 2020;Djouab et al, 2020), but the severity, scope, and nature of such deficits remain unclear. A more comprehensive investigation of face perception deficits is critical for a better understanding developmental prosopagnosia and to advance future research.…”

“…Another way to examine the nature of the deficits is by looking at the associations and dissociations between performance on different face perception tests. While the tests have different formats, stimuli, and cognitive demands, they were all designed to consistently measure face perception, and thus they tend to show moderate to strong associations in typical participants (Mishra et al, 2020). The extent to which the tests engage common and typical mechanisms for face perception can thus be indexed by the size of correlations between the tests.…”