| Popis: |
Numerous neurological, developmental, and psychiatric conditions demonstrate impaired face recognition abilities, which can be socially debilitating. These impairments could be caused by either deficient face perceptual processes, such as reduced ability to integrate face parts into a whole, or deficient face memory processes, such as reduced ability to associate a face with semantic information. Research and clinical practice have focused more on developing face memory assessments, while it currently remains unclear which face perception assessments best captures perceptual deficits. A validated face perception measure could not only help with diagnosing the causes of face recognition deficits but could also help determine the most appropriate treatment. Here, we compare several available face perception assessments to identify those that can best assess perception deficits in developmental prosopagnosics. Thirty prosopagnosics and thirty age-matched neurotypical controls completed a battery of four face perception assessments, namely, computerized Benton Face Recognition Test, Cambridge Face Perception Test, University of Southern California Face Perception Test, and Telling Faces Together Test. They were also evaluated on two face recognition/ memory measures- Cambridge face memory test and famous faces memory test. We used logistic regression for the perception tests to predict prosopagnosic vs. control group membership and used multiple linear regressions to predict continuous objective and subjective measures of face recognition memory. Our results show that the Benton face test was the most reliable (α = 0.74), sensitive (AUC= 0.83), and predictive assessment of prosopagnosia diagnosis and face memory performance across the groups. The Cambridge face perception test also performed adequately well in terms of test sensitivity (AUC=0.80) and predicted face memory performance across the groups. Further, we found that face lighting change trials better predicted DP group membership and face recognition abilities than viewpoint-change trials. Together, these results have direct clinical application in assessing populations with face processing difficulties. |
