ArticleBrain sciences2024
Face Feature Change Detection Ability in Developmental Prosopagnosia and Super-Recognisers.
Article in Brain sciences, 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 Identity Tests and Inclusion Criteria in Self-Identified Acquired Prosopagnosia.Brain sciences · 2026Article
- Super-recognizers sample visual information of superior computational value for facial recognition.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2025Article
- Impaired Face Feature-to-Location Statistical Learning and Single-Feature Discrimination in Developmental Prosopagnosia.Brain sciences · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In non-clinical populations, facial features (eyes, nose, mouth) may vary in their contribution to face identity perception. Changes to whole faces are easier to detect than changes to individual features, and eye changes are typically easier to detect than mouth changes, which in turn are easier to detect than nose changes. However, how this differs for people with face recognition difficulties (developmental prosopagnosia; DP) and for individuals with superior face recognition abilities (super-recognisers; SR) is not clear; although findings from previous studies have suggested differences, the nature of this difference is not understood. The aim of this study was to examine whether differences in the ability to detect feature changes in DPs and SRs were (a) quantitative, meaning that the pattern across feature changes remained the same but there was an overall upwards or downwards shift in performance, or (b) qualitative, meaning that the pattern across feature changes was different. Using a change detection task in which individual face features (eyes, nose, mouth) changed between sequentially presented faces, we found that while prosopagnosics showed a quantitative difference in performance with a downwards shift across all conditions, super-recognisers only showed qualitative differences: they were better able to detect when the face was the same and were marginally (but not non-significantly) worse at detecting when the eyes changed. Further, the only condition which distinguished between the three groups was the ability to identify when the same face was presented, with SRs being better than controls, and controls being better than DPs. Our findings suggest that, in feature-matching tasks, differences for DPs are due to them being overall worse at the task, while SRs use a qualitatively different strategy.
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.