Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35411960›Full record

ArticleCognitive science2022

Face-Processing Differences Present in Grapheme-Color Synesthetes.

Thea Mannix, Thomas Alrik Sørensen

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cognitive science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 37% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 3 countries.

Thea MannixCentre for Cognitive Neuroscience, Aalborg University.
Thomas Alrik SørensenCentre for Cognitive Neuroscience, Aalborg University.
Institut des Sciences Cognitives Marc Jeannerod · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Grapheme-color synesthesia is a heterogeneous neurological phenomenon whereby the experience of a grapheme automatically and involuntarily elicits an experience of color. While the majority of synesthesia research has focused on inducer-specific influences of synesthetic associations, more recent efforts have examined potential broader differences. Based on spontaneous reports from synesthetes detailing problems with face recognition, in conjunction with the geographical proximity of neurological regions relevant to both synesthesia and face processing, we sought to examine whether synesthetes demonstrated atypical face-processing abilities. A total of 16 grapheme-color synesthetes and 16 age-and-gender matched controls (±3 years) completed the Cambridge Face Memory Test (CFMT; Duchaine & Nakayama, 2006) of face memory, the Vanderbilt Holistic Face Processing Task (VHPT-F; Richler, Floyd, & Gauthier, 2014) of holistic face processing, as well as a standardized self-report questionnaire the Faces and Emotions Questionnaire (Freeman, Palermo, & Brock, 2015). The results revealed significantly poorer performance in synesthete's ability to recognize faces in the CFMT that was driven by a reduction in upright advantage. Results also revealed a significant reduction in overall accuracy on the VHPT-F for synesthetes, who despite this displayed a comparable holistic processing advantage compared to matched controls. Finally, synesthetes also rated themselves as significantly worse at face recognition. We suggest that this pattern may reflect differences in the development of individualized perceptual strategies.

Indexed as

Facial RecognitionPerceptual DisordersColor PerceptionHumansPattern Recognition, VisualPhotic StimulationSynesthesiaExpertiseFace processingPerceptual strategiesSynesthesia

Identifiers

PMID35411960
PMCPMC9286625
OpenAlexW4223431300

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.