Eye movements and retinotopic tuning in developmental prosopagnosia

Peterson, Matthew; Zaun, Ian; Hoke, Harris; Jiahui, Guo; Duchaine, Brad; Kanwisher, Nancy

doi:10.1167/19.9.7

Cited by 17 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 58 publications

(119 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, researchers have suggested that atypical gaze behavior toward the face, with fewer fixations on the eye-region, during development, may reflect an important contributing factor to DP (e.g., Schwarzer et al, 2007 ; also see Bobak et al, 2016 ). This finding seems to be supported by other studies (e.g., DeGutis et al, 2012b ), but more research is needed before firm conclusions can be drawn (e.g., see Geskin and Behrmann, 2018 ; Peterson et al, 2019 ). For the time being, researchers can only agree that people with DP form a heterogeneous group characterized by variation in clinical profiles ( Stollhoff et al, 2011 ; Susilo and Duchaine, 2013 ; Dalrymple and Duchaine, 2016 ; Bate and Tree, 2017 ).…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 83%

Developmental Prosopagnosia and Elastic Versus Static Face Recognition in an Incidental Learning Task

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous research on the beneficial effect of motion has postulated that learning a face in motion provides additional cues to recognition. Surprisingly, however, few studies have examined the beneficial effect of motion in an incidental learning task and developmental prosopagnosia (DP) even though such studies could provide more valuable information about everyday face recognition compared to the perception of static faces. In the current study, 18 young adults (Experiment 1) and five DPs and 10 age-matched controls (Experiment 2) participated in an incidental learning task during which both static and elastically moving unfamiliar faces were sequentially presented and were to be recognized in a delayed visual search task during which the faces could either keep their original presentation or switch (from static to elastically moving or vice versa). In Experiment 1, performance in the elastic-elastic condition reached a significant improvement relative to the elastic-static and static-elastic condition, however, no significant difference could be detected relative to the static-static condition. Except for higher scores in the elastic-elastic compared to the static-elastic condition in the age-matched group, no other significant differences were detected between conditions for both the DPs and the age-matched controls. The current study could not provide compelling evidence for a general beneficial effect of motion. Age-matched controls performed generally worse than DPs, which may potentially be explained by their higher rates of false alarms. Factors that could have influenced the results are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 83%

Developmental Prosopagnosia and Elastic Versus Static Face Recognition in an Incidental Learning Task

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It has recently been suggested that individual differences in face recognition ability may reflect different patterns of gaze fixations employed by observers. For example, some DPs appear to spend less time examining the internal feature of the face, in particular the eyes 66,67 . Conversely, so-called ‘super-recognizers’ – people with exceptional face recognition ability 68 – spend more time inspecting the nose region than typical observers 66 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The discrimination of facial sex in developmental prosopagnosia

Marsh

Biotti

Cook

et al. 2019

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Developmental prosopagnosia (DP) is a neurodevelopmental condition characterised by difficulties recognising and discriminating faces. It is currently unclear whether the perceptual impairments seen in DP are restricted to identity information, or also affect the perception of other facial characteristics. To address this question, we compared the performance of 17 DPs and matched controls on two sensitive sex categorisation tasks. First, in a morph categorisation task, participants made binary decisions about faces drawn from a morph continuum that blended incrementally an average male face and an average female face. We found that judgement precision was significantly lower in the DPs than in the typical controls. Second, we used a sex discrimination task, where female or male facial identities were blended with an androgynous average face. We manipulated the relative weighting of each facial identity and the androgynous average to create four levels of signal strength. We found that DPs were significantly less sensitive than controls at each level of difficulty. Together, these results suggest that the visual processing difficulties in DP extend beyond the extraction of facial identity and affects the extraction of other facial characteristics. Deficits of facial sex categorisation accord with an apperceptive characterisation of DP.

show abstract

“…Neurotypicals/Controls and DP were recruited from different sources. Control and DPs were recruited from different sources: a) Our database of Boston DPs who previously participated in laboratory studies, b) DPs referred to us from Dr. Matthew Peterson at MIT, who recently completed a Boston-area DP study (Peterson et al, 2019)…”

Section: Participantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Mishra¹,

Fry²,

Saad³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Eye movements and retinotopic tuning in developmental prosopagnosia

Cited by 17 publications

References 58 publications

Developmental Prosopagnosia and Elastic Versus Static Face Recognition in an Incidental Learning Task

Developmental Prosopagnosia and Elastic Versus Static Face Recognition in an Incidental Learning Task

The discrimination of facial sex in developmental prosopagnosia

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About