Do congenital prosopagnosia and the other-race effect affect the same face recognition mechanisms?

Congenital prosopagnosia (CP), an innate impairment in recognizing faces, as well as the other-race effect (ORE), a disadvantage in recognizing faces of foreign races, both affect face recognition abilities. Are the same face processing mechanisms affected in both situations? To investigate this question, we tested three groups of 21 participants: German congenital prosopagnosics, South Korean participants and German controls on three different tasks involving faces and objects. First we tested all participants on the Cambridge Face Memory Test in which they had to recognize Caucasian target faces in a 3-alternative-forced-choice task. German controls performed better than Koreans who performed better than prosopagnosics. In the second experiment, participants rated the similarity of Caucasian faces that differed parametrically in either features or second-order relations (configuration). Prosopagnosics were less sensitive to configuration changes than both other groups. In addition, while all groups were more sensitive to changes in features than in configuration, this difference was smaller in Koreans. In the third experiment, participants had to learn exemplars of artificial objects, natural objects, and faces and recognize them among distractors of the same category. Here prosopagnosics performed worse than participants in the other two groups only when they were tested on face stimuli. In sum, Koreans and prosopagnosic participants differed from German controls in different ways in all tests. This suggests that German congenital prosopagnosics perceive Caucasian faces differently than do Korean participants. Importantly, our results suggest that different processing impairments underlie the ORE and CP.

[1]  J. Schultz,et al.  Corrigendum: Do congenital prosopagnosia and the other-race effect affect the same face recognition mechanisms? , 2015, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

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

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

[4]  Galit Yovel,et al.  A Robust Method of Measuring Other-Race and Other-Ethnicity Effects: The Cambridge Face Memory Test Format , 2012, PloS one.

[5]  R. Kimchi,et al.  Perceptual separability of featural and configural information in congenital prosopagnosia , 2012, Cognitive neuropsychology.

[6]  M. Coltheart,et al.  Covert face recognition in congenital prosopagnosia: A group study , 2012, Cortex.

[7]  Marco Catani,et al.  At the forefront of clinical neuroscience , 2012, Cortex.

[8]  J. Schultz,et al.  The role of featural and configural information for perceived similarity between faces , 2011 .

[9]  Galia Avidan,et al.  Impaired holistic processing in congenital prosopagnosia , 2011, Neuropsychologia.

[10]  Isabel Gauthier,et al.  Holistic Processing Predicts Face Recognition , 2011, Psychological science.

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

[12]  Kurt Hugenberg,et al.  The categorization-individuation model: an integrative account of the other-race recognition deficit. , 2010, Psychological review.

[13]  H. Bülthoff,et al.  Visual and haptic perceptual spaces show high similarity in humans. , 2010, Journal of vision.

[14]  G. Rhodes,et al.  Processes Underlying the Cross-Race Effect: An Investigation of Holistic, Featural, and Relational Processing of Own-Race versus Other-Race Faces , 2010, Perception.

[15]  E. McKone,et al.  Asia has the global advantage: Race and visual attention , 2010, Vision Research.

[16]  F. Mast,et al.  Configural and featural processing in humans with congenital prosopagnosia. , 2010, Advances in cognitive psychology.

[17]  Allison B Sekuler,et al.  Holistic Processing Is Not Correlated With Face-Identification Accuracy , 2010, Psychological science.

[18]  Galia Avidan,et al.  Functional MRI Reveals Compromised Neural Integrity of the Face Processing Network in Congenital Prosopagnosia , 2009, Current Biology.

[19]  M. Behrmann,et al.  An integrative approach towards understanding the psychological and neural basis of congenital prosopagnosia. , 2009 .

[20]  Ingo Kennerknecht,et al.  Prevalence of hereditary prosopagnosia (HPA) in Hong Kong Chinese population , 2008, American journal of medical genetics. Part A.

[21]  Rachael E. Jack,et al.  Culture Shapes How We Look at Faces , 2008, PloS one.

[22]  C. Carbon,et al.  Neural and genetic foundations of face recognition and prosopagnosia. , 2008, Journal of neuropsychology.

[23]  G. Rhodes,et al.  An own-race advantage for components as well as configurations in face recognition , 2008, Cognition.

[24]  Bentin Shlomo The role of featural and configural processing in own- and other-race face classification: Behavioral and ERP evidence , 2008 .

[25]  D. Maurer,et al.  Neural correlates of processing facial identity based on features versus their spacing , 2007, Neuropsychologia.

[26]  Claus-Christian Carbon,et al.  Faces as Objects of Non-Expertise: Processing of Thatcherised Faces in Congenital Prosopagnosia , 2007, Perception.

[27]  Lynn C. Robertson,et al.  Functional Plasticity in Ventral Temporal Cortex following Cognitive Rehabilitation of a Congenital Prosopagnosic , 2007, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[28]  Raymond J. Dolan,et al.  Role of Features and Second-order Spatial Relations in Face Discrimination, Face Recognition, and Individual Face Skills: Behavioral and Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Data , 2007, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

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

[30]  Sarah E. MacPherson,et al.  Familiar Other-Race Faces Show Normal Holistic Processing and are Robust to Perceptual Stress , 2007, Perception.

[31]  Nao Ninomiya,et al.  The 10th anniversary of journal of visualization , 2007, J. Vis..

[32]  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.

[33]  Catherine J. Mondloch,et al.  What aspects of face processing are impaired in developmental prosopagnosia? , 2006, Brain and Cognition.

[34]  Bruno Rossion,et al.  Holistic Processing Is Finely Tuned for Faces of One's Own Race , 2006, Psychological science.

[35]  Gillian Rhodes,et al.  Expert face coding: Configural and component coding of own-race and other-race faces , 2006, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[36]  Galit Yovel,et al.  Specialized Face Perception Mechanisms Extract Both Part and Spacing Information: Evidence from Developmental Prosopagnosia , 2006, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[37]  Rafael Malach,et al.  Detailed Exploration of Face-related Processing in Congenital Prosopagnosia: 2. Functional Neuroimaging Findings , 2005, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[38]  Galia Avidan,et al.  Detailed Exploration of Face-related Processing in Congenital Prosopagnosia: 1. Behavioral Findings , 2005, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[39]  J. P. Rushton,et al.  THIRTY YEARS OF RESEARCH ON RACE DIFFERENCES IN COGNITIVE ABILITY , 2005 .

[40]  Brad Duchaine,et al.  Dissociations of Face and Object Recognition in Developmental Prosopagnosia , 2005, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[41]  Q. Vuong,et al.  The Respective Role of Low and High Spatial Frequencies in Supporting Configural and Featural Processing of Faces , 2005, Perception.

[42]  Neil A. Macmillan,et al.  Detection theory: A user's guide, 2nd ed. , 2005 .

[43]  N. Kanwisher,et al.  Face perception: domain specific, not process specific. , 2004, Neuron.

[44]  Mariya V Cherkasova,et al.  Developmental prosopagnosia: A study of three patients , 2003, Brain and Cognition.

[45]  Irene Daum,et al.  Developmental Prosopagnosia: A Review , 2003, Behavioural neurology.

[46]  D. Maurer,et al.  The many faces of configural processing , 2002, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[47]  J. Brigham,et al.  Thirty years of investigating the own-race bias in memory for faces: A meta-analytic review , 2001 .

[48]  G. Hole,et al.  Featural and Configurational Processes in the Recognition of Faces of Different Familiarity , 2000, Perception.

[49]  A. Freire,et al.  The Face-Inversion Effect as a Deficit in the Encoding of Configural Information: Direct Evidence , 2000, Perception.

[50]  Thomas Vetter,et al.  A morphable model for the synthesis of 3D faces , 1999, SIGGRAPH.

[51]  Matthew Turk,et al.  A Morphable Model For The Synthesis Of 3D Faces , 1999, SIGGRAPH.

[52]  H. Bülthoff,et al.  Face recognition under varying poses: The role of texture and shape , 1996, Vision Research.

[53]  David Beymer,et al.  Face recognition under varying pose , 1994, 1994 Proceedings of IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition.

[54]  Przemyslaw Prusinkiewicz,et al.  Modeling seashells , 1992, SIGGRAPH.

[55]  Neil A. Macmillan,et al.  Detection Theory: A User's Guide , 1991 .

[56]  G. Rhodes,et al.  Expertise and configural coding in face recognition. , 1989, British journal of psychology.