Abstract
Developmental prosopagnosia (DP) is a cognitive condition characterized by a relatively selective impairment in face recognition. Currently, people are screened for DP via a single attempt at objective face-processing tests, usually all presented on the same day. However, several variables probably influence performance on these tests irrespective of actual ability, and the influence of repeat administration is also unknown. Here, we assess, for the first known time, the test–retest reliability of the Cambridge Face Memory Test (CFMT)—the leading task used worldwide to diagnose DP. This value was found to fall just below psychometric standards, and single-case analyses revealed further inconsistencies in performance that were not driven by testing location (online or in-person), nor the time-lapse between attempts. Later administration of an alternative version of the CFMT (the CFMT-Aus) was also found to be valuable in confirming borderline cases. Finally, we found that performance on the first 48 trials of the CFMT was equally as sensitive as the full 72-item score, suggesting that the instrument may be shortened for testing efficiency. We consider the implications of these findings for existing diagnostic protocols, concluding that two independent tasks of unfamiliar face memory should be completed on separate days.
Highlights
Developmental prosopagnosia (DP) is a cognitive condition characterized by a relatively selective impairment in face recognition [1]
Most researchers diagnose the condition using a combination of the Cambridge Face Memory Test (CFMT: [14]), the Cambridge Face Perception Test (CFPT: [15]) and a famous faces test (e.g. [16,17,18])
Dominant recommendations suggest that DP is diagnosed when scores fall into the impaired range on any two of these three tasks [4,19]
Summary
Developmental prosopagnosia (DP) is a cognitive condition characterized by a relatively selective impairment in face recognition [1]. These difficulties occur in the absence of any neurological damage, socio-emotional dysfunction or lower-level visual deficits, and are estimated to affect 2–2.5% of the adult population [2] and 1.2–4% of those in middle childhood [3] ( note that, by definition, the lower end of a normal distribution would encompass 2.5% of the population: [1,4]). Over the past 20 years, research into DP has surged, and individuals with the condition have been 2 used to make theoretical inferences about the development and functioning of the cognitive and neural architecture of the face recognition system Dominant recommendations suggest that DP is diagnosed when scores fall into the impaired range (typically at least two s.d. from the control mean) on any two of these three tasks [4,19]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 
Published Version (
Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call