What's wrong with the prosopagnosia literature? A new approach to diagnosing and researching the condition
Developmental prosopagnosia is characterised by severe, lifelong difficulties when recognising facial identity. Most researchers require prosopagnosia cases exhibit ultra-conservative levels of impairment on the Cambridge Face Memory Test before they include them in their experiments. This results in the majority of people who believe that they have this condition being excluded from the scientific literature. In this talk I outline the many issues that will afflict prosopagnosia research if this continues, and show that these excluded cases do exhibit impairments on all commonly used diagnostic tests when a group-based method of assessment is utilised. I propose a paradigm shift away from cognitive task-based approaches to diagnosing prosopagnosia, and outline a new way that researchers can investigate this condition.
Commonly used face cognition tests yield low reliability and inconsistent performance: Implications for test design, analysis, and interpretation of individual differences data
Unfamiliar face processing (face cognition) ability varies considerably in the general population. However, the means of its assessment are not standardised, and selected laboratory tests vary between studies. It is also unclear whether 1) the most commonly employed tests are reliable, 2) participants show a degree of consistency in their performance, 3) and the face cognition tests broadly measure one underlying ability, akin to general intelligence. In this study, we asked participants to perform eight tests frequently employed in the individual differences literature. We examined the reliability of these tests, relationships between them, consistency in participants’ performance, and used data driven approaches to determine factors underpinning performance. Overall, our findings suggest that the reliability of these tests is poor to moderate, the correlations between them are weak, the consistency in participant performance across tasks is low and that performance can be broadly split into two factors: telling faces together, and telling faces apart. We recommend that future studies adjust analyses to account for stimuli (face images) and participants as random factors, routinely assess reliability, and that newly developed tests of face cognition are examined in the context of convergent validity with other commonly used measures of face cognition ability.