scholarly journals Facing the facts: Naive participants have only moderate insight into their face recognition and face perception abilities

2018 ◽  
Vol 72 (4) ◽  
pp. 872-881 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna K Bobak ◽  
Viktoria R Mileva ◽  
Peter JB Hancock
Keyword(s):  
Face Recognition ◽  
Principal Component ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Valuable Contribution ◽  
Object Processing ◽  
Recognition Ability ◽  
Large Populations ◽  
With Memory ◽  
Insight Into ◽  
Report Measure

A reliable self-report measure to assess the broad spectrum of face recognition ability (FRA) from developmental prosopagnosia (DP) to super-recognition would make a valuable contribution to initial screening of large populations. We examined the performance of 96 naive participants and seven super-recognisers (SRs) using a range of face and object processing tasks and a newly developed 20-item questionnaire, the Stirling Face Recognition Scale (SFRS). Overall, our findings suggest that young adults have only moderate insight into their FRA, but those who have been previously informed of their (exceptional) performance, the SRs, estimate their FRA accurately. Principal component analysis of SFRS yielded two components. One loads on questions about low ability and correlates with perceptual tasks, and one loads on questions about high FRA and correlates with memory for faces. We recommend that self-report measures of FRA should be used in addition to behavioural testing, to allow for cross-study comparisons, until new, more reliable instruments of self-report are developed. However, self-report measures should not be solely relied upon to identify highly skilled individuals. Implications of these results for theory and applied practice are discussed.

scholarly journals Robust associations between the 20-item prosopagnosia index and the Cambridge Face Memory Test in the general population

2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 160923 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katie L. H. Gray ◽  
Geoffrey Bird ◽  
Richard Cook
Keyword(s):  
Face Recognition ◽  
General Population ◽  
Validation Study ◽  
Memory Test ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Face Memory ◽  
Formal Testing ◽  
And Performance ◽  
Insight Into ◽  
Report Measure

Developmental prosopagnosia (DP) is a neurodevelopmental condition, characterized by lifelong face recognition deficits. Leading research groups diagnose the condition using complementary computer-based tasks and self-report measures. In an attempt to standardize the reporting of self-report evidence, we recently developed the 20-item prosopagnosia index (PI20), a short questionnaire measure of prosopagnosic traits suitable for screening adult samples for DP. Strong correlations between scores on the PI20 and performance on the Cambridge Face Memory Test (CFMT) appeared to confirm that individuals possess sufficient insight into their face recognition ability to complete a self-report measure of prosopagnosic traits. However, the extent to which people have insight into their face recognition abilities remains contentious. A lingering concern is that feedback from formal testing, received prior to administration of the PI20, may have augmented the self-insight of some respondents in the original validation study. To determine whether the significant correlation with the CFMT was an artefact of previously delivered feedback, we sought to replicate the validation study in individuals with no history of formal testing. We report highly significant correlations in two independent samples drawn from the general population, confirming: (i) that a significant relationship exists between PI20 scores and performance on the CFMT, and (ii) that this is not dependent on the inclusion of individuals who have previously received feedback. These findings support the view that people have sufficient insight into their face recognition abilities to complete a self-report measure of prosopagnosic traits.

Associations between self-reported and actual face recognition abilities are only evident in above- and below-average recognisers

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alejandro Estudillo ◽  
Wong Hoo Keat
Keyword(s):  
Face Recognition ◽  
Individual Differences ◽  
Recognition Performance ◽  
Negative Association ◽  
Memory Test ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Recognition Ability ◽  
General Studies ◽  
Typical Range ◽  
Report Measure

The 20-Item Prosopagnosia Items (PI-20) was recently introduced as a self-report measure of face recognition abilities and as an instrument to help the diagnosis of prosopagnosia. In general, studies using this questionnaire have shown that observers have moderate to strong insights into their face recognition abilities. However, it remains unknown whether these insights are equivalent for the whole range of face recognition abilities. The present study investigates this issue using the Mandarin version of the PI-20 and the Cambridge Face Memory Test Chinese (CFMT-Chinese). Our results showed a moderate negative association between the PI-20 and the CFMT-Chinese. However, this association was driven by people with low and high face recognition ability, but absent in people within the typical range of face recognition performance. The implications of these results for the study of individual differences and the diagnosis of prosopagnosia are discussed.

scholarly journals The Twenty Item Prosopagnosia Index (PI20) provides meaningful evidence of face recognition impairment

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (11) ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Tsantani ◽  
Tim Vestner ◽  
Richard Cook
Keyword(s):  
Face Recognition ◽  
Recognition Accuracy ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Objective Measures ◽  
Recognition Ability ◽  
Considerable Debate ◽  
Computer Based ◽  
Typical Range ◽  
Insight Into ◽  
Intended Use

The Twenty Item Prosopagnosia Index (PI20) is a self-report questionnaire used for quantifying prosopagnosic traits. This scale is intended to help researchers identify cases of developmental prosopagnosia by providing standardized self-report evidence to complement diagnostic evidence obtained from objective computer-based tasks. In order to respond appropriately to items, prosopagnosics must have some insight that their face recognition is well below average, while non-prosopagnosics need to understand that their relative face recognition ability falls within the typical range. There has been considerable debate about whether participants have the necessary insight into their face recognition abilities to respond appropriately. In the present study, we sought to determine whether the PI20 provides meaningful evidence of face recognition impairment. In keeping with the intended use of the instrument, we used PI20 scores to identify two groups: high-PI20 scorers (those with self-reported face recognition difficulties) and low-PI20 scorers (those with no self-reported face recognition difficulties). We found that participant groups distinguished on the basis of PI20 scores clearly differed in terms of their mean performance on objective measures of face recognition ability. We also found that high-PI20 scorers were more likely to achieve levels of face recognition accuracy associated with developmental prosopagnosia.

scholarly journals Associations between self-reported and objective face recognition abilities are only evident in above- and below-average recognisers

PeerJ ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. e10629
Author(s):  
Alejandro J. Estudillo ◽  
Hoo Keat Wong
Keyword(s):  
Face Recognition ◽  
Individual Differences ◽  
Recognition Performance ◽  
Negative Association ◽  
Memory Test ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Recognition Ability ◽  
General Studies ◽  
Typical Range ◽  
Report Measure

The 20-Item Prosopagnosia Items (PI-20) was recently introduced as a self-report measure of face recognition abilities and as an instrument to help the diagnosis of prosopagnosia. In general, studies using this questionnaire have shown that observers have moderate to strong insights into their face recognition abilities. However, it remains unknown whether these insights are equivalent for the whole range of face recognition abilities. The present study investigates this issue using the Mandarin version of the PI-20 and the Cambridge Face Memory Test Chinese (CFMT-Chinese). Our results showed a moderate negative association between the PI-20 and the CFMT-Chinese. However, this association was driven by people with low and high face recognition ability, but absent in people within the typical range of face recognition performance. The implications of these results for the study of individual differences and the diagnosis of prosopagnosia are discussed.

scholarly journals Intrinsic equivalence between developmental prosopagnosia questionnaires

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daisuke Matsuyoshi ◽  
Katsumi Watanabe
Keyword(s):  
Face Recognition ◽  
High Reliability ◽  
Recognition Performance ◽  
Large Population ◽  
Principal Component ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Effective Measure ◽  
Recognition Ability ◽  
Relationship Of

AbstractThe 20-item prosopagnosia index (PI20) is a self-report measure of face recognition ability, which is aimed to assess the risk for developmental prosopagnosia (DP), developed by Shah, Gaule, Sowden, Bird, and Cook (2015). Although they validated PI20 in several ways and it may serve as a quick and cost-effective measure for estimating DP risk (Livingston & Shah, in press; Shah et al., 2015), they did not formally evaluate its validity against a pre-existing alternative questionnaire (Kennerknecht et al., 2008) even though they criticized the weak relationship of the pre-existing questionnaire to actual behavioral face recognition performance. Thus, we administered the questionnaires to a large population (N = 855) and found a very strong correlation (r = 0.82 [95% confidence interval: 0.80, 0.84]), a principal component that accounted for more than 90% of the variance, and comparable reliability between the questionnaires. These results show unidimensionality and equivalence between the two questionnaires, or at least, a very strong common latent factor underlying them. The PI20 may not be greater than the pre-existing questionnaire; the two questionnaires measured essentially the same trait. The intrinsic equivalence between the questionnaires necessitates a revision of the view that the PI20 overcomes the weakness of the pre-existing questionnaire. Because both questionnaires contained unreliable items, we suggest, instead of using either questionnaire alone, that selection of a set of items with high reliability may offer a more robust approach to capture face recognition ability.

scholarly journals The 20-item prosopagnosia index (PI20): a self-report instrument for identifying developmental prosopagnosia

2015 ◽  
Vol 2 (6) ◽  
pp. 140343 ◽  
Author(s):  
Punit Shah ◽  
Anne Gaule ◽  
Sophie Sowden ◽  
Geoffrey Bird ◽  
Richard Cook
Keyword(s):  
Face Recognition ◽  
Self Report ◽  
New Instrument ◽  
Recognition Ability ◽  
Unfamiliar Face ◽  
Computer Based ◽  
Objective Tests ◽  
And Performance ◽  
Reliable Classification ◽  
Perceptual Impairment

Self-report plays a key role in the identification of developmental prosopagnosia (DP), providing complementary evidence to computer-based tests of face recognition ability, aiding interpretation of scores. However, the lack of standardized self-report instruments has contributed to heterogeneous reporting standards for self-report evidence in DP research. The lack of standardization prevents comparison across samples and limits investigation of the relationship between objective tests of face processing and self-report measures. To address these issues, this paper introduces the PI20; a 20-item self-report measure for quantifying prosopagnosic traits. The new instrument successfully distinguishes suspected prosopagnosics from typically developed adults. Strong correlations were also observed between PI20 scores and performance on objective tests of familiar and unfamiliar face recognition ability, confirming that people have the necessary insight into their own face recognition ability required by a self-report instrument. Importantly, PI20 scores did not correlate with recognition of non-face objects, indicating that the instrument measures face recognition, and not a general perceptual impairment. These results suggest that the PI20 can play a valuable role in identifying DP. A freely available self-report instrument will permit more effective description of self-report diagnostic evidence, thereby facilitating greater comparison of prosopagnosic samples, and more reliable classification.

Not so fast! Response times may not reflect face recognition ability

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xian Li ◽  
Maruti Mishra ◽  
Bar Yosef ◽  
Joseph DeGutis
Keyword(s):  
Face Recognition ◽  
Object Recognition ◽  
Cognitive Abilities ◽  
Group Membership ◽  
Response Times ◽  
Fast Response ◽  
Efficiency Score ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Object Processing ◽  
Recognition Ability

Response times (RT) are commonly used to assess cognitive abilities and have recently been employed to assess face and object recognition abilities, such as quantifying the prevalence of object recognition deficits in developmental prosopagnosia (DP). However, it is unclear whether RTs from face and object processing tasks predict recognition ability beyond accuracy. To test the validity of RTs, we examined accuracy and RT on a widely-used face matching assessment modified to collect meaningful RT data, the computerized Benton Face Recognition Test (BFRT-c), and measured whether accuracy and RT predicted face recognition ability and DP/control group membership. 62 controls and 36 developmental prosopagnosics (DPs) performed the BFRT-c as well as validated measures of face recognition ability, the Cambridge Face Memory Test (CFMT) and Famous Faces Test (FFT). In both controls and DPs, there was little-to-no association between BFRT-c accuracy and RT (controls: r=.07, DPs: r=.03). In controls, BFRT-c accuracy robustly predicted CFMT (r=.49), FFMT (r=.43), and a composite of these measures (r=.54), whereas BFRT-c RT was not significantly associated with these measures (all r's < .16). We also found that BFRT-c accuracy significantly differed between DPs and controls, but RT failed to differentiate the groups. These results were replicated when performing outlier removal and we also found that combined scores of accuracy and RT (inverse efficiency score and balanced integration score) did not predict face recognition ability or group membership as well as accuracy alone. Together, these results suggest that researchers should use caution when using RTs to characterize individual differences in face processing or diagnose deficits in prosopagnosia.

scholarly journals Does Cognitive Self-Report Measure Type Differentially Predict Cognitive Decline? A Systematic Review

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 292-292
Author(s):  
Rachel Wion ◽  
Nikki Hill ◽  
Tyler Bell ◽  
Jacqueline Mogle ◽  
Jennifer Yates ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cognitive Decline ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Memory Decline ◽  
Memory Problems ◽  
Comparison Groups ◽  
Global Cognition ◽  
With Memory ◽  
Report Measure

Abstract Up to 47% of older adults without measurable cognitive impairment report difficulties with memory and thinking which potentially increases their risk for developing cognitive decline. Many measures are used for assessing self-reported cognition; however, certain types of these measures may be more predictive of cognitive decline. The purpose of this systematic review was to compare the role of cognitive self-report measure types in predicting risk for cognitive decline. PubMed, CINAHL, and PsycINFO databases were searched using the following inclusion criteria: longitudinal studies, outcome of cognitive decline, and two or more cognitive self-report measures. A total of 4,319 articles were identified during the initial search and narrowed to 19 final articles. The Quality in Prognosis Studies tool was used to determine study quality. Six comparison themes emerged during synthesis: self-reported cognition or memory with or without worry; self-reported global cognition or self-reported memory; self-reported memory decline and self-reported executive function decline; self-reported cognition and self-reported memory by others; self-reported memory and self-reported memory problems in comparison with peers; and self-reported memory and self-reported memory affecting daily function. Self-reported memory decline with worry and self-reported memory problems by others were most predictive of future impairment. It was difficult to definitively determine whether certain cognitive self-report measure types where more predictive of risk for cognitive decline because there were very few articles in some of the comparison groups. Future investigations of self-reported cognition should focus on using measures that have been shown to be the most efficacious at predicting risk for cognitive decline.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document