A cross-syndrome study of the development of holistic face recognition in children with autism, Down syndrome, and Williams syndrome
Introduction
Faces have a special status as visual stimuli in terms of both their social relevance and the expertise that adults demonstrate in their recognition. Although infants show an early preference for faces (e.g., Johnson, Dziurawiec, Ellis, & Morton, 1991), investigation of the subsequent developmental course of face recognition has revealed different underlying processes and strategies that improve at different rates (e.g., Carey and Diamond, 1977, Freire and Lee, 2001, Maurer et al., 2002). In this article, we focus on one of these processes, holistic recognition, and examine its developmental profile in typically developing (TD) children and children with developmental disorders: autism, Down syndrome (DS), and Williams syndrome (WS).
Behavioral and neuroimaging experimentation has used several paradigms to investigate how individuals use visual information to recognize faces. These include (sometimes in combination) the manipulation of facial features such as eyes, mouth, nose, and facial outline; the presentation of these features in or out of the context of the face; the presentation of parts of faces such as the top or bottom half; and manipulation of the orientation at which the face is presented, for example, comparing upright and inverted presentations. Based on these paradigms, several processes have been identified and are broadly described as follows: (a) holistic processing, occasionally referred to as “global” or gestalt processing, where the face is recognized as a whole (holistic processing is sometimes conceived of in terms of a fast template-matching procedure [see Diamond & Carey, 1986, for norm-based accounts; see Tanaka & Farah, 1993, and Tanaka & Sengco, 1997, for discussions of accounts based on the accessibility of different types of facial information]); (b) featural processing, also known as local or analytical face processing, where recognition is driven by individual features such as eyes, nose, and mouth; and (c) configural processing, where recognition is driven by the arrangement of the features in the face. This may be in terms of the relative positioning of the features, termed first-order configural information (e.g., eyes above nose), or in terms of the exact distances between features, termed second-order configural or relational information (e.g., eye separation). The contribution of these three processes to face recognition changes gradually with chronological age (CA), with configural processing being the last to emerge (Maurer et al., 2002, Mondloch et al., 2002).
In the following sections, we briefly review the research on holistic face recognition and its development and then consider the contrasting face recognition skills reported in the three developmental disorders.
Section snippets
Holistic face recognition
The role of parts and wholes in perception has long been a focus of research. The face is perhaps a unique example of a stimulus that is seen as an organized meaningful pattern that is difficult to break down into its parts without harming perception. Compelling examples of holistic processing come from two behavioral paradigms widely used to evaluate the existence of holistic face processing: the part–whole paradigm (Tanaka & Farah, 1993) and the composite face effect (Young, Hellawell, & Hay,
Participants
Participants were 33 children with autism (28 boys and 5 girls, mean age = 8 years 6 months), 15 children with DS (10 boys and 5 girls, mean age = 9 years 6 months), 15 children with WS (7 boys and 8 girls, mean age = 8 years 9 months), and 25 TD children (13 boys and 12 girls, mean age = 7 years 2 months). See Table 1 for group details. The greater age range of the TD sample permitted comparisons to be made between disorder and TD trajectories on the basis of either CA or MA where disorder groups may
Results
The results are provided in three sections. First, we assess how well the children in each group recognized faces. Second, we explore the development of part–whole processing and its sensitivity to inversion using trajectory analysis. Third, we explore any differential effects of the target feature (eyes, nose, or mouth) on responses for the groups.
Discussion
In comparison with previous use of the part–whole task, the most notable finding for our typically developing children was a reverse pattern of difficulty compared with Tanaka and Farah’s (1993) findings. In our version of the task, matching of face feature to target was easier in the part condition than in the whole condition, whereas Farah and Tanaka found that recall was easier in the whole condition than in the part condition. In our results, a consistent pattern of RT data indicated that
Uncited references
Chung and Thomson, 1995, Davies et al., 1994.
Acknowledgments
We thank the Williams Syndrome Foundation (UK) and Resources for Autism (London) for putting us in touch with families. We are grateful to all children and teachers from the Livingstone School and the Manor School in North London for their continuing collaboration. This research was supported by a Birkbeck College, University of London, studentship to the first author, and M.S.T’s contribution was supported by MRC Career Establishment Grant G0300188.
References (93)
- et al.
Prevalence of disorders of the autism spectrum in a population cohort of children in South Thames: The Special Needs and Autism Project (SNAP)
Lancet
(2006) - et al.
Bridging cognition, brain, and molecular genetics: Evidence from Williams syndrome
Trends in Neurosciences
(1999) - et al.
Seeing either the forest or the trees: Dissociation in visuospatial processing
Brain and Cognition
(1989) - et al.
Beyond faces and modularity: The power of an expertise framework
Trends in Cognitive Science
(2006) - et al.
and local processing of faces in children with Williams syndrome
Brain and Cognition
(1999) - et al.
Cortical correlates of face and scene inversion: A comparison
Neuropsychologia
(2006) - et al.
Face recognition in 4- to 7-year-olds: Processing of configural, featural, and paraphernalia information
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology
(2001) - et al.
Newborns’ preferential tracking of face-like stimuli and its subsequent decline
Cognition
(1991) Development itself is the key to understanding developmental disorders
Trends in Cognitive Sciences
(1998)- et al.
The many faces of configural processing
Trends in Cognitive Sciences
(2002)
The Williams syndrome cognitive profile
Brain and Cognition
The natural history of Williams syndrome: Physical characteristics
Journal of Paediatrics
Down’s syndrome
Lancet
Faces are represented holistically in the human occipito-temporal cortex
NeuroImage
People with Williams syndrome process faces holistically
Cognition
Unique profile of visuo-perceptual skills in a genetic syndrome
Brain and Cognition
The neural basis of the behavioural face-inversion effect
Current Biology
The importance of tracing developmental trajectories for clinical child neuropsychology
Autism: A window onto the development of the social and the analytic brain
Annual Review of Neuroscience
Benton Test of Facial Recognition
Unfamiliar face recognition in relatively able autistic children
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry
From piecemeal to configurational representation of faces
Science
Are faces perceived as configurations more by adults than by children?
Visual Cognition
Autism spectrum disorders: Clinical and research frontiers [review]
Archives of Disease in Childhood
Development of face recognition
British Journal of Psychology
Do 7-month-old infants process independent features or facial configurations?
Infant and Child Development
The functional neuroanatomy of social behaviour: Changes in cerebral blood flow when people with autistic disorder process facial expressions
Brain
Gaze fixation and the neural circuitry of face processing in autism
Nature Neuroscience
Face perception in children with autism and Asperger’s syndrome
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry
Neural correlates of face and object recognition in young children with autism spectrum disorder, developmental delay, and typical development
Child Development
The neuropsychology of face processing during infancy and childhood
Holistic face processing is mature at 4 years of age: Evidence from the composite face effect
Journal of Experimental Psychology
Williams syndrome: From genotype through to the cognitive phenotype. American Journal of Medical Genetics:
Seminars in Medical Genetics
Developmental prosopagnosia and the Benton Facial Recognition Test
Neurology
British Picture Vocabulary Scale
The neurobiology of Williams syndrome: Cascading influences of visual system impairment?
Cellular & Molecular Life Sciences
Evidence for superior parietal impairment in Williams syndrome
Neurology
British Ability Scales
Emanuel Miller lecture: Confusions and controversies about Asperger syndrome
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry
Here’s looking at you, kid: Neural systems underlying face and gaze processing in fragile X syndrome
Archives in General Psychiatry
ERP abnormalities of illusory contour perception in Williams syndrome
NeuroReport
Disordered visual processing and oscillatory brain activity in autism and Williams syndrome
NeuroReport
Early visual cortex organization in autism: An fMRI study
NeuroReport
What’s in a face? The case of autism
British Journal of Psychology
Holistic and part-based face recognition in children with autism
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry
Cited by (134)
Characterising developmental disorders: Towards better group comparisons in developmental research
2022, Methods in PsychologySleep-related learning in Williams Syndrome and Down's Syndrome
2021, Advances in Child Development and BehaviorHearing the feeling: Auditory emotion perception in Williams syndrome
2020, Research in Developmental DisabilitiesCharacterizing the neural signature of face processing in Williams syndrome via multivariate pattern analysis and event related potentials
2020, NeuropsychologiaCitation Excerpt :Deruelle et al. (1999) supported this hypothesis, demonstrating that individuals with WS (N = 12) were less impacted by inversion than TD mental age (MA) and chronological age (CA) matched controls (see also Karmiloff-Smith et al., 1997). Similarly, Annaz et al. (2009) report no face inversion effect in WS. However, this pattern is not consistently replicated.
Down syndrome and parental depression: A double hit on early expressive language development
2020, Research in Developmental DisabilitiesA cross-syndrome approach to the social phenotype of neurodevelopmental disorders: Focusing on social vulnerability and social interaction style
2020, Research in Developmental DisabilitiesCitation Excerpt :Annette Karmiloff-Smith pioneered a cross-syndrome approach to the study of cognition in neurodevelopmental disorders (NDDs; Brown et al., 2003; Paterson, Girelli, Butterworth, & Karmiloff-Smith, 2006; Scerif, Cornish, Wilding, Driver, & Karmiloff-Smith, 2004). Her cross-syndrome approach has advanced the understanding of a wide range of phenomena, including language development (Kelly, Walker, & Norbury, 2013; Lindgren, Folstein, Tomblin, & Tager-Flusberg, 2009), face and emotion recognition (Annaz, Karmiloff-Smith, Johnson, & Thomas, 2009; Dimitriou, Leonard, Karmiloff-Smith, Johnson, & Thomas, 2015; Martínez-Castilla, Burt, Borgatti, & Gagliardi, 2015), attention (Cornish, Steele, Monteiro, Karmiloff-Smith, & Scerif, 2012; Scerif et al., 2004), sleep (Ashworth, Hill, Karmiloff‐Smith, & Dimitriou, 2017; Ashworth, Hill, Karmiloff-Smith, & Dimitriou, 2013; D’Souza, D’Souza, Horváth, Plunkett, & Karmiloff-Smith, 2020), psychopathology (Rodgers, Riby, Janes, Connolly, & McConachie, 2012; Royston et al., 2019; Woodcock, Oliver, & Humphreys, 2009), sensory processing (Hannant, Cassidy, Van de Weyer, & Mooncey, 2018; Heald, Adams, & Oliver, 2020) and social/adaptive behaviour (Hamner, Lee, Hocking, & Vivanti, 2019; Sumner, Leonard, & Hill, 2016; Williams, Porter, & Langdon, 2013). The goal of a cross-syndrome design is often to identify differences in abilities between disorders while capturing variability.