These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Perceptual heterogeneity in developmental prosopagnosia is continuous, not categorical.
    Author: DeGutis J, Kirsch L, Evans TC, Fry R, Lee DJ, Mishra M, Campbell A.
    Journal: Cortex; 2024 Jul; 176():37-52. PubMed ID: 38744075.
    Abstract:
    Developmental prosopagnosia (DP) is associated with considerable perceptual heterogeneity, though the nature of this heterogeneity and whether there are discrete subgroups versus continuous deficits remains unclear. Bennetts et al. (2022) recently found that holistic versus featural processing deficits distinguished discrete DP subgroups, but their sample was relatively small (N = 37), and subgroups were defined using a single task. To characterize perceptual heterogeneity in DPs more comprehensively, we administered a broad face perception battery to a large sample of 109 DPs and 134 controls, including validated measures of face matching (Cambridge Face Perception Test - CFPT, Computerized Benton Facial Recognition Test, Same/Different Face Matching Task), holistic processing (Part-Whole Task), and feature processing (Georges Task and Part-Whole part trials). When examining face matching measures, DPs exhibited a similar distribution of performance as controls, though shifted towards impairment by an average of 1.4 SD. We next applied Bennetts (2022) hierarchical clustering approach and k-means clustering to the CFPT upright, inverted, and inversion index measures, similarly finding one group of DPs with poorer inverted face performance and another with a decreased face inversion effect (holistic processing). However, these subgroup differences failed to generalize to other measures of feature and holistic processing beyond the CFPT. We finally ran hierarchical and k-means cluster analyses on our larger battery of face matching, feature, and holistic processing measures. Results clearly showed subgroups with generally better versus worse performance across all measures, with the distinction between groups being somewhat arbitrary. Together, these findings support a continuous account of DP perceptual heterogeneity, with performance differing primarily across all aspects of face perception.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]