ArticleRoyal Society open science2017
Robust associations between the 20-item prosopagnosia index and the Cambridge Face Memory Test in the general population.
Article in Royal Society open science, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
34 citing papers in PubMed.
- Item analyses of the 20-item prosopagnosia index using classical test theory and item response theory.Behavior research methods · 2026Article
- Subjective Face Recognition Ability Is Linked to Objective Face Memory and Face Authenticity Judgment: Validation of the Traditional Chinese Version of the 20-Item Prosopagnosia Index.Brain sciences · 2025Article
- Information-Theoretic Measures of Metacognitive Efficiency: Empirical Validation with the Face Matching Task.Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Assessment of Developmental Prosopagnosia in an Individual with Tourette Syndrome and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: A Case Report.Brain sciences · 2025Article
- Global changes in the pattern of connectivity in developmental prosopagnosia.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2024Article
- Investigating people's metacognitive insight into their own face abilities.Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006) · 2024Article
- Improving the DSM-5 approach to cognitive impairment: Developmental prosopagnosia reveals the need for tailored diagnoses.Behavior research methods · 2024Article
- Autistic adults have insight into their relative face recognition ability.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Binocular rivalry reveals differential face processing in congenital prosopagnosia.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Exploration of the Links Between Psychosocial Well-being and Face Recognition Skills in a French-Speaking Sample.Psychologica Belgica · 2024Article
- Self-reported face recognition abilities moderately predict face-learning skills: Evidence from Italian samples.Heliyon · 2023Article
- The Danish Version of the 20-Item Prosopagnosia Index (PI20): Translation, Validation and a Link to Face Perception.Brain sciences · 2023Article
- Face matching and metacognition: investigating individual differences and a training intervention.PeerJ · 2023Article
- Article
- The rise and fall of face recognition awareness across the life span.Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance · 2023Article
- Impaired grouping of ambient facial images in autism.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Face masks versus sunglasses: limited effects of time and individual differences in the ability to judge facial identity and social traits.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2022Article
- Is It Just Face Blindness? Exploring Developmental Comorbidity in Individuals with Self-Reported Developmental Prosopagnosia.Brain sciences · 2022Article
- The Oxford Face Matching Test: A non-biased test of the full range of individual differences in face perception.Behavior research methods · 2022Article
- Face memory and face perception in autism.Autism : the international journal of research and practice · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.