Self-reported face recognition is highly valid, but alone is not highly discriminative of prosopagnosia-level performance on objective assessments

Arizpe, Joseph; Saad, Elyana; Douglas, Ayooluwa O.; Germine, Laura; Wilmer, Jeremy; DeGutis, Joseph

doi:10.3758/s13428-018-01195-w

Cited by 32 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The metrics from our sample are not meant to predict the absolute discrimination performance of these tests within the general population or within any given subpopulation (e.g., those presenting to a clinic or researcher). If the same ROC metrics were to be derived in a random sample of the general population, the absolute performance would differ from that of our sample (see Arizpe et al, 2019).…”

Section: Statistical Analysis Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Mishra¹,

Fry²,

Saad³

et al. 2020

Preprint

Self Cite

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

Section: Statistical Analysis Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Mishra¹,

Fry²,

Saad³

et al. 2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They are quick and easy, do not require equipment, do not need to be done in person and hence can be used to screen a large number of subjects, even at a distance. Among those are the Kennerknecht 15-item questionnaire 22 , the 20-item Prosopagnosia Index 23 , and the Cambridge Face Memory Questionnaire 24 . A potential concern is that individuals may have only modest insight into their face recognition abilities 25, 26 , particularly children 27 , although some studies suggest that this might not be the case for adults using the Prosopagnosia Index 28, 29 .…”

Section: The Diagnosis Of Prosopagnosiamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A potential concern is that individuals may have only modest insight into their face recognition abilities 25, 26 , particularly children 27 , although some studies suggest that this might not be the case for adults using the Prosopagnosia Index 28, 29 . This concern might account for the fact that questionnaires may have high reliability but only modest sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing prosopagnosia 24 . Because of these concerns, some have advocated that questionnaires always be supplemented by objective tests for diagnosis 9, 24, 30 .…”

Section: The Diagnosis Of Prosopagnosiamentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Progress in perceptual research: the case of prosopagnosia

Albonico

Barton

2019

F1000Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Prosopagnosia is an impairment in the ability to recognize faces and can be acquired after a brain lesion or occur as a developmental variant. Studies of prosopagnosia make important contributions to our understanding of face processing and object recognition in the human visual system. We review four areas of advances in the study of this condition in recent years. First are issues surrounding the diagnosis of prosopagnosia, including the development and evaluation of newer tests and proposals for diagnostic criteria, especially for the developmental variant. Second are studies of the structural basis of prosopagnosia, including the application of more advanced neuroimaging techniques in studies of the developmental variant. Third are issues concerning the face specificity of the defect in prosopagnosia, namely whether other object processing is affected to some degree and in particular the status of visual word processing in light of recent predictions from the “many-to-many hypothesis”. Finally, there have been recent rehabilitative trials of perceptual learning applied to larger groups of prosopagnosic subjects that show that face impairments are not immutable in this condition.

show abstract

“…Some alternative versions of the CFMT have been created using computer-generated faces, and are typically used for online assessment of self-referring individuals prior to formal in-laboratory testing [ 45 – 47 ]. However, evidence suggests that computer-generated faces are not processed in the same way as natural, real-world faces (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diagnosing developmental prosopagnosia: repeat assessment using the Cambridge Face Memory Test

Murray

Bate

2020

R. Soc. open sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Developmental prosopagnosia (DP) is a cognitive condition characterized by a relatively selective impairment in face recognition. Currently, people are screened for DP via a single attempt at objective face-processing tests, usually all presented on the same day. However, several variables probably influence performance on these tests irrespective of actual ability, and the influence of repeat administration is also unknown. Here, we assess, for the first known time, the test–retest reliability of the Cambridge Face Memory Test (CFMT)—the leading task used worldwide to diagnose DP. This value was found to fall just below psychometric standards, and single-case analyses revealed further inconsistencies in performance that were not driven by testing location (online or in-person), nor the time-lapse between attempts. Later administration of an alternative version of the CFMT (the CFMT-Aus) was also found to be valuable in confirming borderline cases. Finally, we found that performance on the first 48 trials of the CFMT was equally as sensitive as the full 72-item score, suggesting that the instrument may be shortened for testing efficiency. We consider the implications of these findings for existing diagnostic protocols, concluding that two independent tasks of unfamiliar face memory should be completed on separate days.

show abstract

Self-reported face recognition is highly valid, but alone is not highly discriminative of prosopagnosia-level performance on objective assessments

Cited by 32 publications

References 46 publications

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

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

Progress in perceptual research: the case of prosopagnosia

Diagnosing developmental prosopagnosia: repeat assessment using the Cambridge Face Memory Test

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About