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.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 855-861 |
| Number of pages | 7 |
| Journal | Neuropsychology |
| Volume | 33 |
| Issue number | 6 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - Sep 1 2019 |
Fingerprint
Keywords
- Congenital prosopagnosia
- Developmental prosopagnosia
- Eye movements
- Familiar face recognition
- First fixation position
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology
Cite this
First the nose, last the eyes in congenital prosopagnosia : Look like your father looks. / De Luca, Maria; Pizzamiglio, Maria Rosa; Di Vita, Antonella; Palermo, Liana; Tanzilli, Antonio; Dacquino, Claudia; Piccardi, Laura.
In: Neuropsychology, Vol. 33, No. 6, 01.09.2019, p. 855-861.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - First the nose, last the eyes in congenital prosopagnosia
T2 - Look like your father looks
AU - De Luca, Maria
AU - Pizzamiglio, Maria Rosa
AU - Di Vita, Antonella
AU - Palermo, Liana
AU - Tanzilli, Antonio
AU - Dacquino, Claudia
AU - Piccardi, Laura
PY - 2019/9/1
Y1 - 2019/9/1
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - Congenital prosopagnosia
KW - Developmental prosopagnosia
KW - Eye movements
KW - Familiar face recognition
KW - First fixation position
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85065604294&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85065604294&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1037/neu0000556
DO - 10.1037/neu0000556
M3 - Article
C2 - 31094554
AN - SCOPUS:85065604294
VL - 33
SP - 855
EP - 861
JO - Neuropsychology
JF - Neuropsychology
SN - 0894-4105
IS - 6
ER -