Contrasting domain-general and domain-specific accounts in cognitive neuropsychology: An outline of a new approach with developmental prosopagnosia as a case

Evidence for a Classical Dissociation between Face and Object Recognition in Developmental Prosopagnosia

It is still a matter of debate whether developmental prosopagnosia is a disorder selective to faces or whether object recognition is also affected. In a previous study, based on a small sample of developmental prosopagnosics (DPs; N = 10), we found impairments in both domains although the difficulties were most pronounced for faces. Importantly, impairments with faces and objects were systematically related. We suggested that that the seemingly disproportional impairment for faces in DP was likely to reflect differences between stimulus categories in visual similarity. Here, we aimed to replicate these findings in a larger, independent sample of DPs (N = 21) using the same experimental paradigms. Contrary to our previous results, we found no disproportional effect of visual similarity on performance with faces or objects in the new DP group when compared to controls (N = 21). The new DP group performed within the control range, and significantly better than the old DP-group, on sensitive and demanding object recognition tasks, and we can demonstrate a classical dissociation between face and object recognition at the group level. These findings are perhaps the strongest evidence yet presented for a face-specific deficit in developmental prosopagnosia.

A new approach to diagnosing and researching developmental prosopagnosia: Excluded cases are impaired too

Developmental prosopagnosia is characterized by severe, lifelong difficulties when recognizing facial identity. Unfortunately, the most common diagnostic assessment (Cambridge Face Memory Test) misses 50-65% of individuals who believe that they have this condition. This results in such excluded cases' absence from scientific knowledge, effect sizes of impairment potentially overestimated, treatment efficacy underrated, and may elicit in them a negative experience of research. To estimate their symptomology and group-level impairments in face processing, we recruited a large cohort who believes that they have prosopagnosia. Matching prior reports, 56% did not meet criteria on the Cambridge Face Memory Test. However, the severity of their prosopagnosia symptoms and holistic perception deficits were comparable to those who did meet criteria. Excluded cases also exhibited face perception and memory impairments that were roughly one standard deviation below neurotypical norms, indicating the presence of objective problems. As the prosopagnosia index correctly classified virtually every case, we propose it should be the primary method for providing a diagnosis, prior to subtype categorization. We present researchers with a plan on how they can analyze these excluded prosopagnosia cases in their future work without negatively impacting their traditional findings. We anticipate such inclusion will enhance scientific knowledge, more accurately estimate effect sizes of impairments and treatments, and identify commonalities and distinctions between these different forms of prosopagnosia. Owing to their atypicalities in visual perception, we recommend that the prosopagnosia index should be used to screen out potential prosopagnosia cases from broader vision research.

Using representational similarity analysis to reveal category and process specificity in visual object recognition

Cross-condition comparisons on neurodevelopmental conditions are central in neurodiversity research. In the realm of visual perception, the performance of participants with different category-specific disorders such as developmental prosopagnosia (problems with faces) and dyslexia (problems with words) have contributed to understanding of perceptual processes involved in word and face recognition. Alterations in face and word recognition are present in several neurodiverse populations, and improved knowledge about their relationship may increase our understanding of this variability of impairment. The present study investigates organizing principles of visual object processing and their implications for developmental disorders of recognition. Some accounts suggest that distinct mechanisms are responsible for recognizing objects of different categories, while others propose that categories share or even compete for cortical resources. We took an individual differences approach to estimate the relationship between abilities in recognition. Neurotypical participants (N = 97 after outlier exclusion) performed a match-to-sample task with faces, houses, and pseudowords. Either individual features or feature configurations were manipulated. To estimate the separability of visual recognition mechanisms, we used representational similarity analysis (RSA) where correlational matrices for accuracy were compared to predicted data patterns. Recognition abilities separated into face recognition on one hand and house/pseudoword recognition on the other, indicating that face recognition may rely on relatively selective mechanisms in neurotypicals. We also found evidence for a general visual object recognition mechanism, while some combinations of category (faces, houses, words) and processing type (featural, configural) likely rely on additional mechanisms. Developmental conditions may therefore reflect combinations of impaired and intact aspects of specific and general visual object recognition mechanisms, where featural and configural processes for one object category separate from the featural or configural processing of another. More generally, RSA is a promising approach for advancing understanding of neurodiversity, including shared aspects and distinctions between neurodevelopmental conditions of visual recognition.

The face inversion effect or the face upright effect?

The face inversion effect (FIE) refers to the observation that presenting stimuli upside-down impairs the processing of faces disproportionally more than other mono-oriented objects. This has been taken as evidence that processing of faces and objects differ qualitatively. However, nearly all FIE studies are based on comparing individuation of upright faces, which most people are rather good at, with individuation of objects most people are much less familiar with individuating (e.g., radios and airplanes). Consequently, the FIE may mainly reflect differences between categories in how they are processed prior to inversion, with within-category discrimination of upright faces being a much more familiar task than within-category discrimination among members belonging to other object classes. We tested this hypothesis by comparing inversion effects for faces and objects using object recognition tasks that do not require within-category discrimination (object decision and old/new recognition memory tasks). In all tasks (seven with objects and two with faces) we find credible inversion effects, but in no instance were these effects significantly larger for faces than for objects. This suggests that the FIE can be a product of familiarity with the type of identification process required in the upright conditions rather than some process that is selectively affected for faces when stimuli are inverted.

Face specific inversion effects provide evidence for two subtypes of developmental prosopagnosia

Many studies have attempted to identify the perceptual underpinnings of developmental prosopagnosia (DP). The majority have focused on whether holistic and configural processing mechanisms are impaired in DP. However, previous work suggests that there is substantial heterogeneity in holistic and configural processing within the DP population; further, there is disagreement as to whether any deficits are face-specific or reflect a broader perceptual deficit. This study used a data-driven approach to examine whether there are systematic patterns of variability in DP that reflect different underpinning perceptual deficits. A group of individuals with DP (N = 37) completed a cognitive battery measuring holistic/configural and featural processing in faces and non-face objects. A two-stage cluster analysis on data from the Cambridge Face Perception Test identified two subgroups of DPs. Across several tasks, the first subgroup (N = 21) showed typical patterns of holistic/configural processing (measured via inversion effects); the second (N = 16) was characterised by reduced or abolished inversion effects compared to age-matched control participants (N = 91). The subgroups did not differ on tasks measuring upright face matching, object matching, non-face holistic processing, or composite effects. These findings indicate two separable pathways to face recognition impairment, one characterised by impaired configural processing and the other potentially by impaired featural processing. Comparisons to control participants provide some preliminary evidence that the deficit in featural processing may extend to some non-face stimuli. Our results demonstrate the utility of examining both the variability between and consistency across individuals with DP as a means of illuminating our understanding of face recognition in typical and atypical populations.