LAUSR.org creates dashboard-style pages of related content for over 1.5 million academic articles. Sign Up to like articles & get recommendations!

First the nose, last the eyes in congenital prosopagnosia: Look like your father looks.

Photo by gcalebjones from unsplash

OBJECTIVE To contribute to the limited body of eye movement (EM) studies of children and family members with congenital prosopagnosia (CP), a task requiring a verbal response for the identification… Click to show full abstract

OBJECTIVE To contribute to the limited body of eye movement (EM) studies of children and family members with congenital prosopagnosia (CP), a task requiring a verbal response for the identification of personally familiar faces was used for the 1st time. METHOD EMs were recorded in a father and his son (both diagnosed with CP) and controls (N = 2). In the identification tasks they watched personally familiar faces and distracters and responded by saying the names of the familiar faces or saying "I don't know." Two discrimination tasks were added to distinguish the specificity of the EM pattern for the recognition tasks. In all tasks, faces were presented 1 by 1 until the response onset; thus, the EM pattern was not saturated by overexposure to the stimulus. The 1st fixation position was examined to localize the 1st area of the face attended to. The spatial-temporal fixation pattern was examined to evaluate the attention devoted to specific regions. RESULTS Both family members were inaccurate and slower than controls in the identification but not the discrimination tasks. In all tasks, they made a number of fixations comparable to those of controls but showed longer fixation durations than controls did. In the identification tasks, they showed poor spatial-temporal distribution of fixations on the eyes and rare 1st fixations on the eyes. CONCLUSIONS Consistent with the literature, both family members showed the typical reduced sampling of the eyes. Nevertheless, our protocol based on explicit verbal responses (which included EM only until response onset) showed that they did not increase the spatial sampling overall by making more fixations than controls did. Instead, they showed longer fixation durations across tasks; this was interpreted as a generalized problem with face processing in affording a more robust sampling of information. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Keywords: fixation; congenital prosopagnosia; family members; familiar faces; identification; controls identification

Journal Title: Neuropsychology
Year Published: 2019

Link to full text (if available)


Share on Social Media:                               Sign Up to like & get
recommendations!

Related content

More Information              News              Social Media              Video              Recommended



                Click one of the above tabs to view related content.