Evidence for normal novel object recognition abilities in developmental prosopagnosia

The issue of the face specificity of recognition deficits in developmental prosopagnosia (DP) is fundamental to the organization of high-level visual memory and has been increasingly debated in recent years. Previous DP investigations have found some evidence of object recognition impairments, but have almost exclusively used familiar objects (e.g. cars), where performance may depend on acquired object-specific experience and related visual expertise. An object recognition test not influenced by experience could provide a better, less contaminated measure of DPs' object recognition abilities. To investigate this, in the current study we tested 30 DPs and 30 matched controls on a novel object memory test (NOMT Ziggerins) and the Cambridge Face Memory Test (CFMT). DPs with severe impairment on the CFMT showed no differences in accuracy or reaction times compared with controls on the NOMT. We found similar results when comparing DPs with a larger sample of 274 web-based controls. Additional individual analyses demonstrated that the rate of object recognition impairment in DPs did not differ from the rate of impairment in either control group. Together, these results demonstrate unimpaired object recognition in DPs for a class of novel objects that serves as a powerful index for broader novel object recognition capacity.

[1]  J. Wilmer.  Individual Differences in Face Recognition: A Decade of Discovery , 2017 .

[2]  Leslie G. Ungerleider,et al.  Selective dissociation between core and extended regions of the face processing network in congenital prosopagnosia. , 2014, Cerebral cortex.

[3]  Emrah Düzel,et al.  A new selective developmental deficit: Impaired object recognition with normal face recognition , 2011, Cortex.

[4]  B. Duchaine,et al.  The Cambridge Car Memory Test: A task matched in format to the Cambridge Face Memory Test, with norms, reliability, sex differences, dissociations from face memory, and expertise effects , 2012, Behavior research methods.

[5]  Richard Cook,et al.  Should developmental prosopagnosia, developmental body agnosia, and developmental object agnosia be considered independent neurodevelopmental conditions? , 2018, Cognitive neuropsychology.

[6]  Punit Shah,et al.  The 20-item prosopagnosia index (PI20): a self-report instrument for identifying developmental prosopagnosia , 2015, Royal Society Open Science.

[7]  R. West,et al.  Everyday memory performance across the life span: effects of age and noncognitive individual differences. , 1992, Psychology and aging.

[8]  Qi Zhu,et al.  Typical and Atypical Development of Functional Connectivity in the Face Network , 2015, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[9]  Martin Eimer,et al.  The face-sensitive N170 component in developmental prosopagnosia , 2012, Neuropsychologia.

[10]  G. Yovel,et al.  Diagnosing prosopagnosia: Effects of ageing, sex, and participant–stimulus ethnic match on the Cambridge Face Memory Test and Cambridge Face Perception Test , 2009, Cognitive neuropsychology.

[11]  K. Nakayama,et al.  Developmental Prosopagnosia: a Window to Content-specific Face Processing This Review Comes from a Themed Issue on Cognitive Neuroscience Edited Developmental Prosopagnosia and Inferences to Functional Organization Investigating the Architecture of Face Processing through Developmental Prosopagnosia , 2022 .

[12]  M. Behrmann,et al.  Congenital prosopagnosia: face-blind from birth , 2005, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[13]  Ken Nakayama,et al.  Normal Greeble Learning in a Severe Case of Developmental Prosopagnosia , 2004, Neuron.

[14]  Ken Nakayama,et al.  No global processing deficit in the Navon task in 14 developmental prosopagnosics. , 2007, Social cognitive and affective neuroscience.

[15]  V. Stone,et al.  The Body-Inversion Effect , 2003, Psychological science.

[16]  Roberta Daini,et al.  Self-face and self-body advantages in congenital prosopagnosia: evidence for a common mechanism , 2018, Experimental Brain Research.

[17]  Johan Wagemans,et al.  The Leuven Perceptual Organization Screening Test (L-POST), an online test to assess mid-level visual perception , 2013, Behavior Research Methods.

[18]  Isabel Gauthier,et al.  Domain-Specific and Domain-General Individual Differences in Visual Object Recognition , 2018 .

[19]  Isabel Gauthier,et al.  General object recognition is specific: Evidence from novel and familiar objects , 2017, Cognition.

[20]  S. Baron-Cohen,et al.  The Autism-Spectrum Quotient (AQ): Evidence from Asperger Syndrome/High-Functioning Autism, Malesand Females, Scientists and Mathematicians , 2001, Journal of autism and developmental disorders.

[21]  K. Nakayama,et al.  The Cambridge Face Memory Test: Results for neurologically intact individuals and an investigation of its validity using inverted face stimuli and prosopagnosic participants , 2006, Neuropsychologia.

[22]  Jason J. S. Barton,et al.  Object recognition in acquired and developmental prosopagnosia , 2019, Cognitive neuropsychology.

[23]  Christian Gerlach,et al.  The face-inversion effect in developmental prosopagnosia , 2017 .

[24]  Richard Cook,et al.  Evaluating object recognition ability in developmental prosopagnosia using the Cambridge Car Memory Test , 2019, Cognitive neuropsychology.

[25]  Tobias Elze,et al.  Deficits in Long-Term Recognition Memory Reveal Dissociated Subtypes in Congenital Prosopagnosia , 2011, PloS one.

[26]  Beatrice de Gelder,et al.  Impaired face and body perception in developmental prosopagnosia , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[27]  Paul H. Garthwaite,et al.  Wanted: Fully Operational Definitions of Dissociations in Single-Case Studies , 2003, Cortex.

[28]  M. Tarr,et al.  Expertise Training with Novel Objects Leads to Left-Lateralized Facelike Electrophysiological Responses , 2002, Psychological science.

[29]  B. Duchaine,et al.  Advances in developmental prosopagnosia research , 2013, Current Opinion in Neurobiology.

[30]  L. Deouell,et al.  Cognitive Neuroscience: Selective visual streaming in face recognition: evidence from developmental prosopagnosia , 1999 .

[31]  Jeremy Wilmer,et al.  Using regression to measure holistic face processing reveals a strong link with face recognition ability , 2013, Cognition.

[32]  Guo Jiahui,et al.  Developmental prosopagnosics have widespread selectivity reductions across category-selective visual cortex , 2018, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[33]  M. Behrmann,et al.  Congenital prosopagnosia without object agnosia? A literature review , 2018, Cognitive neuropsychology.

[34]  K. Nakayama,et al.  Face detection in normal and prosopagnosic individuals. , 2008, Journal of neuropsychology.

[35]  Bruno Rossion,et al.  Visual Expertise with Pictures of Cars Correlates with RT Magnitude of the Car Inversion Effect , 2010, Perception.

[36]  K. Nakayama,et al.  Prosopagnosia as an impairment to face-specific mechanisms: Elimination of the alternative hypotheses in a developmental case , 2006, Cognitive neuropsychology.

[37]  Rankin W. McGugin,et al.  The contribution of general object recognition abilities to face recognition , 2012 .

[38]  Martin Wegrzyn,et al.  The hidden identity of faces: a case of lifelong prosopagnosia , 2018, BMC psychology.

[39]  Richard Cook,et al.  Impaired body perception in developmental prosopagnosia , 2017, Cortex.

[40]  F. Craik,et al.  Levels of processing: A framework for memory research , 1972 .

[41]  Davide Rivolta,et al.  More than just a problem with faces: altered body perception in a group of congenital prosopagnosics , 2017, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[42]  J. Schultz,et al.  Do congenital prosopagnosia and the other-race effect affect the same face recognition mechanisms? , 2014, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[43]  Ingo Kennerknecht,et al.  First report of prevalence of non‐syndromic hereditary prosopagnosia (HPA) , 2006, American journal of medical genetics. Part A.

[44]  Brad Duchaine,et al.  Developmental prosopagnosics have widespread selectivity reductions in category-selective areas , 2018, Journal of Vision.

[45]  Christian Gerlach,et al.  On the Relation between Face and Object Recognition in Developmental Prosopagnosia: No Dissociation but a Systematic Association , 2016, PloS one.

[46]  Sarah Bate,et al.  The domain-specificity of face matching impairments in 40 cases of developmental prosopagnosia , 2019, Cognition.

[47]  Janina Esins,et al.  Face Perception and Test Reliabilities in Congenital Prosopagnosia in Seven Tests , 2016, i-Perception.

[48]  Maarten A. S. Boksem,et al.  Effects of mental fatigue on attention: an ERP study. , 2005, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[49]  Avishai Henik,et al.  Phasic alertness enhances processing of face and non-face stimuli in congenital prosopagnosia , 2016, Neuropsychologia.

[50]  J R Crawford,et al.  Payne and Jones revisited: estimating the abnormality of test score differences using a modified paired samples t test. , 1998, Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology.