Twenty years of investigation with the case of prosopagnosia PS to understand human face identity recognition. Part I: Function

Measuring the Contributions of Perceptual and Attentional Processes in the Complete Composite Face Paradigm

“…These latter findings run contrary to the expected patterns found elsewhere in the literature [6,26]. Importantly, these differences cannot be attributable to the relative disconnection between measures (e.g., inversion, scrambling, part/whole) and their corresponding claims about the nature of holistic processing.…”

“…Misalignment disrupts Subsequent uses of the complete composite face paradigm (and the corresponding composite face illusion) have revealed holistic processing differences as predicted by Richler et al [6] and Gauthier [21]. Namely, support comes from neurological evidence [22], behavioral evidence in neurotypical populations [23], individual differences in facial recognition ability [24], and face-specific congenital or developmental deficits (e.g., prosopagnosia) [25,26]. Equipped with the appropriate tools, researchers can work towards layering additional manipulations that mirror real-world challenges faced by everyday people, as opposed to adding only partially informative findings to the already confusing theoretical fray.…”

Measuring the Contributions of Perceptual and Attentional Processes in the Complete Composite Face Paradigm

“…These latter findings run contrary to the expected patterns found elsewhere in the literature [6,26]. Importantly, these differences cannot be attributable to the relative disconnection between measures (e.g., inversion, scrambling, part/whole) and their corresponding claims about the nature of holistic processing.…”

“…Misalignment disrupts Subsequent uses of the complete composite face paradigm (and the corresponding composite face illusion) have revealed holistic processing differences as predicted by Richler et al [6] and Gauthier [21]. Namely, support comes from neurological evidence [22], behavioral evidence in neurotypical populations [23], individual differences in facial recognition ability [24], and face-specific congenital or developmental deficits (e.g., prosopagnosia) [25,26]. Equipped with the appropriate tools, researchers can work towards layering additional manipulations that mirror real-world challenges faced by everyday people, as opposed to adding only partially informative findings to the already confusing theoretical fray.…”

Visual self‐face and self‐body recognition in a left‐brain‐damaged prosopagnosic patient

“…This dissociation is in the opposite direction to that of the prosopagnosic patient P.S. (Rossion, 2022a, 2022b), who was impaired in the holistic processing of faces, though being able to recognise isolated face parts. We might speculate, based on N.G.…”

Familiarity Processing through Faces and Names: Insights from Multivoxel Pattern Analysis

“…Interestingly, our results also confirmed the growing evidence supporting the involvement of the fusiform gyrus in the processing of face familiarity. The significance of these face-related regions has been underscored by several fMRI studies conducted with prosopagnosic patients [29][30][31]. These studies have consistently demonstrated the pivotal role of these regions in face processing.…”

Measuring the Contributions of Perceptual and Attentional Processes in the Complete Composite Face Paradigm

“…These latter findings run contrary to the expected patterns found elsewhere in the literature [6,26]. Importantly, these differences cannot be attributable to the relative disconnection between measures (e.g., inversion, scrambling, part/whole) and their corresponding claims about the nature of holistic processing.…”

“…Misalignment disrupts Subsequent uses of the complete composite face paradigm (and the corresponding composite face illusion) have revealed holistic processing differences as predicted by Richler et al [6] and Gauthier [21]. Namely, support comes from neurological evidence [22], behavioral evidence in neurotypical populations [23], individual differences in facial recognition ability [24], and face-specific congenital or developmental deficits (e.g., prosopagnosia) [25,26]. Equipped with the appropriate tools, researchers can work towards layering additional manipulations that mirror real-world challenges faced by everyday people, as opposed to adding only partially informative findings to the already confusing theoretical fray.…”

Visual self‐face and self‐body recognition in a left‐brain‐damaged prosopagnosic patient

“…This dissociation is in the opposite direction to that of the prosopagnosic patient P.S. (Rossion, 2022a, 2022b), who was impaired in the holistic processing of faces, though being able to recognise isolated face parts. We might speculate, based on N.G.…”

Familiarity Processing through Faces and Names: Insights from Multivoxel Pattern Analysis

“…Interestingly, our results also confirmed the growing evidence supporting the involvement of the fusiform gyrus in the processing of face familiarity. The significance of these face-related regions has been underscored by several fMRI studies conducted with prosopagnosic patients [29][30][31]. These studies have consistently demonstrated the pivotal role of these regions in face processing.…”

Measuring the Contributions of Perceptual and Attentional Processes in the Complete Composite Face Paradigm

“…These latter findings run contrary to the expected patterns found elsewhere in the literature [6,26]. Importantly, these differences cannot be attributable to the relative disconnection between measures (e.g., inversion, scrambling, part/whole) and their corresponding claims about the nature of holistic processing.…”

“…Misalignment disrupts Subsequent uses of the complete composite face paradigm (and the corresponding composite face illusion) have revealed holistic processing differences as predicted by Richler et al [6] and Gauthier [21]. Namely, support comes from neurological evidence [22], behavioral evidence in neurotypical populations [23], individual differences in facial recognition ability [24], and face-specific congenital or developmental deficits (e.g., prosopagnosia) [25,26]. Equipped with the appropriate tools, researchers can work towards layering additional manipulations that mirror real-world challenges faced by everyday people, as opposed to adding only partially informative findings to the already confusing theoretical fray.…”

Visual self‐face and self‐body recognition in a left‐brain‐damaged prosopagnosic patient

“…This dissociation is in the opposite direction to that of the prosopagnosic patient P.S. (Rossion, 2022a, 2022b), who was impaired in the holistic processing of faces, though being able to recognise isolated face parts. We might speculate, based on N.G.…”

Familiarity Processing through Faces and Names: Insights from Multivoxel Pattern Analysis

“…Interestingly, our results also confirmed the growing evidence supporting the involvement of the fusiform gyrus in the processing of face familiarity. The significance of these face-related regions has been underscored by several fMRI studies conducted with prosopagnosic patients [29][30][31]. These studies have consistently demonstrated the pivotal role of these regions in face processing.…”