Elsevier

Neuropsychologia

Volume 163, 10 December 2021, 108067
Neuropsychologia

Comparing the sensitivity of face matching assessments to detect face perception impairments

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2021.108067Get rights and content

Highlights

  • BFRT-c is a valid, reliable face perception test sensitive to prosopagnosia.

  • CFPT is also a useful face perception test sensitive to prosopagnosia.

  • BFRT-c lighting-change trials better predicted prosopagnosia than view-change trials.

  • Combined use of the BFRT-c and CFPT can best assess face perception impairments.

Abstract

Numerous neurological, developmental, and psychiatric conditions demonstrate impaired face recognition, which can be socially debilitating. These impairments can be caused by either deficient face perception or face memory mechanisms. Though there are well-validated, sensitive measures of face memory impairments, it currently remains unclear which assessments best measure face perception impairments. A sensitive, validated face perception measure could help with diagnosing causes of face recognition deficits and be useful in characterizing individual differences in unimpaired populations. Here, we compared the computerized Benton Face Recognition Test (BFRT-c) and Cambridge Face Perception Test (CFPT) in their ability to differentiate developmental prosopagnosics (DPs, N = 30) and age-matched controls (N = 30). Participants completed the BFRT-c, CFPT, and two additional face perception assessments: the University of Southern California Face Perception Test (USCFPT) and a novel same/different face matching test (SDFMT). Participants were also evaluated on objective and subjective face recognition tasks including the Cambridge Face Memory Test, famous faces test, and Prosopagnosia Index-20. We performed a logistic regression with the perception tests predicting DP vs. control group membership and used multiple linear regressions to predict continuous objective and subjective face recognition memory. Our results show that the BFRT-c performed as well as, if not better than, the CFPT, and that both tests clearly outperformed the USCFPT and SDFMT. Further, exploratory analyses revealed that face lighting-change conditions better predicted DP group membership and face recognition abilities than viewpoint-change conditions. Together, these results support the combined use of the BFRT-c and CFPT to best assess face perception impairments.

Introduction

Faces convey signals essential for social interactions and are one of the most reliable ways to determine a person's identity. Recognizing a face is a highly specialized, multistage process (Bruce and Young, 1986) involving a network of brain regions (Grill-Spector et al., 2017; Haxby et al., 2000; Haxby and Gobbini, 2011). Though recognition of familiar faces is typically rapid and effortless (Jenkins et al., 2018), this ability can be severely impaired in many neurological, psychiatric, and developmental disorders including prosopagnosia (Albonico and Barton, 2019; Mayer and Rossion, 2007), autism spectrum disorders (Dwyer et al., 2019; Weigelt et al., 2012), schizophrenia (Watson, 2013), Alzheimer's disease (Lavallée et al., 2016), person recognition disorders (Gainotti, 2007), age-related cognitive decline (Boutet et al., 2015), as well as others (Barton et al., 2004; Dimitriou et al., 2015). The causes of face recognition deficits in these disorders vary, and it is crucial to identify measures that can discern the stages of face identification impairments to help with both diagnosis (Benton and Van Allen, 1968; Benton et al., 1994; Duchaine and Nakayama, 2006; Duchaine et al., 2007) and treatment (Bate and Bennetts, 2014; DeGutis et al., 2014a, b).

When assessing face recognition abilities, it is important to consider there are two stages of processing involved: face perception and face memory (e.g., De Renzi et al., 1991; Liu et al., 2002; Weigelt et al., 2014). Face perception refers to building up/encoding a structural representation of a face (Bruce and Young, 1986). This representation allows one to judge whether simultaneously presented faces belong to the same or different individuals. On the other hand, face memory involves the ability to store and retrieve individuated faces from long-term memory. Face memory relies on face perception but also involves processes such as associating semantic and contextual information with a face, storing and retrieving a face and related semantic/contextual information, and, in the case of familiar faces, building up a robust face representation over repeated presentations. One influential developmental study suggests that face perception develops earlier (∼age 5) while face memory demonstrates later face-specific development (∼age 10, Weigelt et al., 2014). Additionally, patient studies have found dissociations between acquired prosopagnosics with impaired face perception and intact face memory (apperceptive prosopagnosia) and vice versa (associative prosopagnosia, De Renzi et al., 1991; though see Busigny et al., 2014).

Face perception impairments are typically assessed using face matching tasks where the to-be-matched faces are presented simultaneously and, importantly, vary in either viewpoint, lighting, or emotion (Benton and Van Allen, 1968; Duchaine et al., 2007; White et al., 2017). Such variations in face images prevent direct image-based matching, are thought to make judgments rely more on specialized face-specific perceptual mechanisms (e.g., holistic processing, McKone, 2008; Tanaka and Farah, 1993), and better capture impairments in patients with face perception deficits. Face memory is assessed using tasks that involve learning and short-term retention of identities of novel faces, such as the Cambridge Face Memory Test (CFMT: Duchaine and Nakayama, 2006) or long-term recognition of familiar/famous faces (Bobak et al., 2017; Duchaine and Nakayama, 2005). Although many researchers have regarded the CFMT as the gold standard test for assessing deficits in face memory, there is currently no widely agreed-upon measure to reliably characterize face perception impairments. Notably, because perception precedes memory, all visual memory tests including the CFMT depend on both perceptual and memory processes, thus making it difficult to dissociate the independent contributions of the two. For example, studies have reported that factors that impair face matching performance (e.g., lighting, viewpoint changes) similarly impair short-term and long-term memory for faces (Braje et al., 1998; Braje, 2003). The goal of the current study was to identify tests that can best assess face perception in impaired samples.

In the past two decades, numerous tests have been developed to assess face perception (e.g., Duchaine et al., 2007; Burton et al., 2010; Fysh and Bindemann, 2018). The Benton Face Recognition Test1 (BFRT, Benton and Van Allen, 1968) was one of the first assessments to provide a standardized measure of face perception proficiency to assess deficits. The BFRT requires matching the identity of a front-view target face to three of six faces simultaneously presented, which may vary in lighting or viewpoint, (see Fig. 1). This test has been widely used to assess perceptual deficits in clinical disorders like cortical blindness, lobectomy, visual agnosia, and autism (Benton et al., 1994; Busigny et al., 2009; Demirci and Erdogan, 2016; Duchaine, 2000; Yerys et al., 2018). However, the sensitivity of the original, unspeeded version of the BFRT has been challenged in studies of developmental prosopagnosics (DPs), individuals with severe lifelong impairments in face recognition and group-level face perception deficits (Duchaine and Nakayama, 2004; Duchaine and Weidenfeld, 2003; Nunn et al., 2001). In particular, Duchaine and Nakayama (2004) found that 9 of 11 DPs performed normally on the BFRT (>41 out of 54, z-score > −1). Further, a recent study reported that in 23 DPs, 18 scored within the normal range on the original BFRT (Albonico et al., 2017).

One potentially critical factor with the original version of the BFRT is that it had no time restrictions and did not emphasize response speed. Studies have shown that when given unlimited time to perform face matching, feature-by-feature comparison becomes an available strategy to achieve high accuracy rates (e.g., Towler et al., 2017). Along these lines, studies have reported that prosopagnosics take significantly longer to complete the original BFRT than controls (Albonico et al., 2017; Duchaine, 2000; Duchaine and Nakayama, 2004; Nunn et al., 2001), as they may use a feature-by-feature strategy to achieve accuracy within the normal range. This suggests that speeded tasks may be better at identifying impairments in face perception. In an effort to address these shortcomings of the original BFRT, Rossion and Michel (2018) developed a computerized version of the BFRT (BFRT-c) that collects response times and instructs participants to respond, “as quickly and accurately as possible”. The normative accuracy of this version (see Dzhelyova et al., 2020) is notably 0.75 SDs lower than versions without speeded instructions (e.g., Albonico et al., 2017). This suggests that the BFRT-c's speeded instructions may change participants' strategy, possibly favoring face-specific processes (e.g., holistic processing) rather than more laborious, non-face specific feature matching processes. This may make the BFRT-c a substantially more sensitive assessment of face perception impairment than the original version or other currently available assessments.

To date, there have been no studies comparing the validity and sensitivity of this version of the BFRT-c or other available face perception tests in clinical samples. DPs are an ideal population to validate face perception tests, as larger samples of DPs consistently show reduced group-level face matching performance compared to controls (e.g., Biotti et al., 2019; Dalrymple et al., 2014; Zhao et al., 2016; though individual DP cases may demonstrate normal face perception) and are prevalent enough to obtain adequate group sample sizes (2.5% of population; Kennerknecht et al., 2006). In addition to differentiating between DPs and controls, a good face perception assessment should also strongly correlate with measures of face memory, since face perception ability is a significant contributor to face memory performance (e.g., Stumps et al., 2020). In the current study, we compared the BFRT-c and the widely used Cambridge Face Perception Test (CFPT, Duchaine et al., 2007; Bobak et al., 2017; Bowles et al., 2009; Gonzalez-Perez et al., 2019; Palermo et al., 2017; Rezlescu et al., 2017), in their ability to a) detect face perception impairments and b) predict face memory performance. In the CFPT, participants are required to arrange six front-view morphed faces from most-to-least similar to a target face shown from a ¾-viewpoint. Two important differences between CFPT and BFRT-c are that a) speed is emphasized in the BFRT-c whereas in the CFPT there is less emphasis on speed, with 60 s provided to complete each trial, and b) the BFRT-c includes lighting and viewpoint changes between faces whereas the CFPT only includes viewpoint change trials. Studies have suggested that prosopagnosics may be particularly worse at matching faces across lighting change trials, even more so than viewpoint change trials (Duchaine and Nakayama, 2004; Rossion and Michel, 2018). Given that BFRT-c is speeded and includes lighting change trials, we hypothesized that the BFRT-c will predict unique variance from the CFPT in DP vs. control group membership as well as objective and subjective face recognition ability.

In exploratory analyses, we also sought to compare the BFRT-c and CFPT to two additional face matching assessments shown to be sensitive to face perception impairments. First, we included the USC Face Perception Test (USCFPT, Margalit et al., 2016; Biederman et al., 2017) that uses computer-generated faces and difficulty levels scaled according to the Gabor-jet model and has shown decreased performance in DPs (Biederman et al., 2017; Margalit et al., 2016; Yue et al., 2012). We also included a novel same/different face matching task (SDFMT) (motivated by White et al., 2017), which demonstrated significant differences between DPs and controls. Finally, in the tests with lighting and viewpoint change trials (BFRT-c and SDFMT), we also sought to directly compare these trial types in their ability to differentiate DPs and controls and predict objective and subjective face recognition.

Section snippets

Participants

The study included 60 adults between the ages of 18 and 70 years old. Controls and DPs were recruited from different sources. DPs were recruited from: a) Our database of Boston DPs who previously participated in laboratory studies, b) referrals from Dr. Matthew Peterson at MIT, who recently completed a Boston-area DP study (Peterson et al., 2019), c) referrals from Dr. Brad Duchaine's website, www.faceblind.org, and d) responses to our advertisement posted on public transportation

Demographics and diagnostic test performance

Participants included 30 DPs (24 female) and 30 controls (18 female) with a mean age of 38.5 years (SD = 13.69) and 38.8 years (SD = 10.18), respectively. There was no significant difference between the two groups in age (p = .92), but there was a trend toward a higher proportion of females in the DP group (p = .09). As expected, the DP group performed significantly worse (all p < .001) than controls on objective and subjective diagnostic measures of face recognition (CFMT, FFMT, and PI20;

Discussion

The current study helps to address the existing gap in the literature regarding which tests are best for identifying face perception impairments. When diagnosing DP as well as predicting objective and subjective face recognition, the BFRT-c and CFPT consistently showed robust predictive abilities and clearly outperformed the other measures. When we directly compared the BFRT-c and CFPT, the BFRT-c outperformed the CFPT, solely predicting unique variance in DP diagnosis and self-reported face

Conclusion

Research has shown that face perception and face memory are interconnected but distinct processes. Yet, in contrast to face memory assessments that are better-established, studies have yet to examine the best assessments to reliably measure face perception impairments. Encoding faces accurately is an initial step in developing face familiarity and later stages of face memory, person recognition, and integration with subsequent cognitive processes. The current study examines multiple face

Credit author statement

Maruti Mishra: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal analysis, Visualization, Writing - Original Draft, Writing - Review & Editing. Regan Fry: Investigation, Data curation, Writing- Review & Editing. Elyana Saad: Methodology, Software. Joseph Arizpe: Methodology, Software, Writing- Review & Editing. Yuri-Grace Ohashi: Investigation. Joseph M DeGutis: Conceptualization, Methodology, Resources, Writing - Original Draft, Writing - Review & Editing, Supervision, Project administration, Funding

Declaration of competing interest

We have no known conflicts of interest to disclose.

Acknowledgement

We thank Alice E. Lee and volunteers at HDSL for data collection of DP and control participants, respectively. We want to thank developmental prosopagnosics and control participants for completing our challenging battery of tasks.

References (95)

  • F.L. Ferris et al.

    New visual acuity charts for clinical research

    Am. J. Ophthalmol.

    (1982)
  • K. Fisher et al.

    Reduced sensitivity to contrast signals from the eye region in developmental prosopagnosia

    Cortex

    (2016)
  • G. Gainotti

    Different patterns of famous people recognition disorders in patients with right and left anterior temporal lesions: a systematic review

    Neuropsychologia

    (2007)
  • M. Gonzalez-Perez et al.

    Transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) at 40 Hz enhances face and object perception

    Neuropsychologia

    (2019)
  • R. Gross et al.

    Multi-pie

    Image Vision Comput.

    (2010)
  • J.V. Haxby et al.

    The distributed human neural system for face perception

    Trends Cognit. Sci.

    (2000)
  • A.J. Logan et al.

    The Caledonian face test: a new test of face discrimination

    Vis. Res.

    (2016)
  • A. Stumps et al.

    Characterizing developmental prosopagnosia beyond face perception: impaired recollection but intact familiarity recognition

    Cortex

    (2020)
  • S. Weigelt et al.

    Face identity recognition in autism spectrum disorders: a review of behavioral studies

    Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev.

    (2012)
  • X. Yue et al.

    Predicting the psychophysical similarity of faces and non-face complex shapes by image-based measures

    Vis. Res.

    (2012)
  • Y. Zhao et al.

    Altered spontaneous neural activity in the occipital face area reflects behavioral deficits in developmental prosopagnosia

    Neuropsychologia

    (2016)
  • Y. Adini et al.

    Face recognition: the problem of compensating for changes in illumination direction

    IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell.

    (1997)
  • A. Albonico et al.
    (2019)
  • A. Albonico et al.

    Italian normative data and validation of two neuropsychological tests of face recognition: Benton Facial Recognition Test and Cambridge Face Memory Test

    Neurol. Sci.

    (2017)
  • J.M. Arizpe et al.

    Self-reported face recognition is highly valid, but alone is not highly discriminative of prosopagnosia-level performance on objective assessments

    Behav. Res. Methods

    (2019)
  • S. Baron-Cohen et al.

    The autism-spectrum quotient (AQ): evidence from asperger syndrome/high-functioning autism, malesand females, scientists and mathematicians

    J. Autism Dev. Disord.

    (2001)
  • J.J.S. Barton et al.

    Are patients with social developmental disorders prosopagnosic? Perceptual heterogeneity in the Asperger and socio-emotional processing disorders

    Brain

    (2004)
  • S. Bate et al.

    The rehabilitation of face recognition impairments: a critical review and future directions

    Front. Hum. Neurosci.

    (2014)
  • M. Behrmann et al.

    Detailed exploration of face-related processing in congenital prosopagnosia: 1. Behavioral findings

    J. Cognit. Neurosci.

    (2005)
  • A.L. Benton et al.

    Contributions to Neuropsychological Assessment: A Clinical Manual

    (1994)
  • I. Biederman et al.

    What is the nature of the perceptual deficit in congenital prosopagnosia

    Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of Vision Sciences Society

    (2017)
  • A.K. Bobak et al.

    Eye-movement strategies in developmental prosopagnosia and “super” face recognition

    Q. J. Exp. Psychol.

    (2017)
  • I. Boutet et al.

    On the particular vulnerability of face recognition to aging: a review of three hypotheses

    Front. Psychol.

    (2015)
  • D.C. Bowles et al.

    Diagnosing prosopagnosia: effects of ageing, sex, and participant-stimulus ethnic match on the Cambridge face memory test and Cambridge face perception test

    Cogn. Neuropsychol.

    (2009)
  • W.L. Braje

    Illumination encoding in face recognition: effect of position shift

    J. Vis.

    (2003)
  • W.L. Braje et al.

    Illumination effects in face recognition

    Psychobiology

    (1998)
  • V. Bruce et al.

    Understanding face recognition

    Br. J. Psychol.

    (1986)
  • R. Bruyer et al.

    Combining speed and accuracy in cognitive psychology: is the inverse efficiency score (IES) a better dependent variable than the mean reaction time (RT) and the percentage of errors (PE)?

    Psychol. Belg.

    (2011)
  • A.M. Burton

    Why has research in face recognition progressed so slowly? The importance of variability

    Q. J. Exp. Psychol.

    (2013)
  • A.M. Burton et al.

    The glasgow face matching test

    Behav. Res. Methods

    (2010)
  • T. Busigny et al.

    Right anterior temporal lobe atrophy and person-based semantic defect: a detailed case study

    Neurocase

    (2009)
  • J. DeGutis et al.

    Facial expression training improves emotion recognition and changes neural tuning in a patient with acquired emotion recognition deficits and prosopagnosia

    J. Vision

    (2013)
  • J. DeGutis et al.

    Holistic processing of the mouth but not the eyes in developmental prosopagnosia

    Cogn. Neuropsychol.

    (2012)
  • J. DeGutis et al.

    Holistic face training enhances face processing in developmental prosopagnosia

    Brain

    (2014)
  • J.M. DeGutis et al.

    Face processing improvements in prosopagnosia: successes and failures over the last 50 years

    Front. Hum. Neurosci.

    (2014)
  • E. Demirci et al.

    Is emotion recognition the only problem in ADHD? Effects of pharmacotherapy on face and emotion recognition in children with ADHD

    ADHD Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorders

    (2016)
  • D. Dimitriou et al.

    Atypical development of configural face recognition in children with autism, Down syndrome and Williams syndrome

    J. Intellect. Disabil. Res.

    (2015)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text