ArticleBrain sciences2026
Face Identity Tests and Inclusion Criteria in Self-Identified Acquired Prosopagnosia.
Article in Brain sciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesProsopagnosia is characterised by severe difficulties recognising facial identity. While many self-identified developmental cases fail to meet widely used cognitive task-based criteria for inclusion in research, the extent to which this is an issue in acquired prosopagnosia is unknown. We therefore assessed the sensitivity of widely used inclusion cutoffs and face-processing tests in 14 self-identified British acquired prosopagnosia cases.
resultsWe found the -2 SD cutoff did not detect impairment in 9/11 (82%) individuals on the Cambridge Face Perception Test, 5/11 (45%) of cases on the Cambridge Face Memory Test, and 2/14 (14%) on the Famous Faces Test. Requiring impairments on two memory tasks at -2 SD or -1 SD resulted in at most 8/14 (57%) and 5/14 (36%) of cases not meeting the criteria, respectively. A more liberal approach, which additionally allowed for inclusion using a single test score at -2 SD, performed better by excluding at most 2/14 (14%). Given that the Famous Faces Test alone at the -2 SD level performed identically to our liberal approach, we suggest it could be used if an objective assessment is deemed necessary.
conclusionsWe extend the recent suggestions in the literature that self-identified prosopagnosia cases who fail to meet cognitive test criteria warrant further investigation to explain the reasons for their self-reported status. We therefore advocate a more inclusive approach to prosopagnosia research.
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.