ArticleScientific reports2024
Binocular rivalry reveals differential face processing in congenital prosopagnosia.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Face perception: a window into the social mind.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Visuospatial processing in patients with Alzheimer's disease and cerebral amyloid angiopathy.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Article
- Improving the DSM-5 approach to cognitive impairment: Developmental prosopagnosia reveals the need for tailored diagnoses.Behavior research methods · 2024Article
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
Abstract
Congenital Prosopagnosia (CP) is an innate impairment in face perception with heterogeneous characteristics. It is still unclear if and to what degree holistic processing of faces is disrupted in CP. Such disruption would be expected to lead to a focus on local features of the face. In this study, we used binocular rivalry (BR) to implicitly measure face perception in conditions that favour holistic or local processing. The underlying assumption is that if stimulus saliency affects the perceptual dominance of a given stimulus in BR, one can deduce how salient a stimulus is for a given group (here: participants with and without CP) based on the measured perceptual dominance. A further open question is whether the deficit in face processing in CP extends to the processing of the facial display of emotions. In experiment 1, we compared predominance of upright and inverted faces displaying different emotions (fearful, happy, neutral) vs. houses between participants with CP (N = 21) and with normal face perception (N = 21). The results suggest that CP observers process emotions in faces automatically but rely more on local features than controls. The inversion of faces, which is supposed to disturb holistic processing, affected controls in a more pronounced way than participants with CP. In experiment 2, we introduced the Thatcher effect in BR by inverting the eye and mouth regions of the presented faces in the hope of further increasing the effect of face inversion. However, our expectations were not borne out by the results. Critically, both experiments showed that inversion effects were more pronounced in controls than in CP, suggesting that holistic face processing is less relevant in CP. We find BR to be a useful implicit test for assessing visual processing specificities in neurological participants.
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.