Abstract: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.

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

The problem this paper attempts to address is whether developmental prosopagnosia (DP) is limited to a specific impairment in face recognition or also affects object recognition abilities. Specifically, the researchers aim to test an early hypothesis that DP patients not only have difficulties in face recognition but also exhibit certain deficits in object recognition. Additionally, the study explores whether these deficits can be explained by visual similarity. In previous research, based on a small sample (N=10), researchers found that although DP patients performed significantly worse in face recognition, they also showed impairments in object recognition, and there was a systematic association between these two deficits. This suggests that the differences between face and object recognition might be related to visual similarity within the stimulus categories. However, to verify this finding, the current study conducted a replication experiment with a larger independent sample (N=21). The results showed that the new DP group did not exhibit significant differences from the control group in face and object recognition tasks, even in cases of the highest visual similarity. This means that the new DP group did not have noticeable deficits in object recognition, which is different from the previous study's findings. Therefore, this study provides strong evidence supporting the view that DP patients have a specific impairment in face recognition, which cannot be simply explained by visual similarity.

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