Dissociations of Face and Object Recognition in Developmental Prosopagnosia
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
Face-selective Activation in a Congenital Prosopagnosic Subject
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
Prosopagnosia as a Deficit in Encoding Curved Surface
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
Can Face Recognition Really be Dissociated from Object Recognition?
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
Face-specific processing in the human fusiform gyrus
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
Detailed Exploration of Face-related Processing in Congenital Prosopagnosia: 1. Behavioral Findings
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
Dissociations of Face and Object Recognition in Developmental Prosopagnosia
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
Reliable face recognition using adaptive and robust correlation filters
Computer Vision and Image Understanding
Individual differences in face cognition: Brain-behavior relationships
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
Robust face recognition strategies using feed-forward architectures and parts
AMFG'07 Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on Analysis and modeling of faces and gestures
Fusiform gyrus face selectivity relates to individual differences in facial recognition ability
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
Hi-index | 0.02 |
Neuropsychological studies with patients suffering from prosopagnosia have provided the main evidence for the hypothesis that the recognition of faces and objects rely on distinct mechanisms. Yet doubts remain, and it has been argued that no case demonstrating an unequivocal dissociation between face and object recognition exists due in part to the lack of appropriate response time measurements (Gauthier et al., 1999). We tested seven developmental prosopagnosics to measure their accuracy and reaction times with multiple tests of face recognition and compared this with a larger battery of object recognition tests. For our systematic comparison, we used an old/new recognition memory paradigm involving memory tests for cars, tools, guns, horses, natural scenes, and houses in addition to two separate tests for faces. Developmental prosopagnosic subjects performed very poorly with the face memory tests as expected. Four of the seven prosopagnosics showed a very strong dissociation between the face and object tests. Systematic comparison of reaction time measurements for all tests indicates that the dissociations cannot be accounted for by differences in reaction times. Contrary to an account based on speed accuracy tradeoffs, prosopagnosics were systematically faster in nonface tests than in face tests. Thus, our findings demonstrate that face and nonface recognition can dissociate over a wide range of testing conditions. This is further support for the hypothesis that face and nonface recognition relies on separate mechanisms and that developmental prosopagnosia constitutes a disorder separate from developmental agnosia.