Abstract

Face processing is a crucial socio-cognitive ability. Is it acquired progressively or does it constitute an innately-specified, face-processing module? The latter would be supported if some individuals with seriously impaired intelligence nonetheless showed intact face-processing abilities. Some theorists claim that Williams syndrome (WS) provides such evidence since, despite IQs in the 50s, adolescents/adults with WS score in the normal range on standardized face-processing tests. Others argue that atypical neural and cognitive processes underlie WS face-processing proficiencies. But what about infants with WS? Do they start with typical face-processing abilities, with atypicality developing later, or are atypicalities already evident in infancy? We used an infant familiarization/novelty design and compared infants with WS to typically developing controls as well as to a group of infants with Down syndrome matched on both mental and chronological age. Participants were familiarized with a schematic face, after which they saw a novel face in which either the features (eye shape) were changed or just the configuration of the original features. Configural changes were processed successfully by controls, but not by infants with WS who were only sensitive to featural changes and who showed syndrome-specific profiles different from infants with the other neurodevelopmental disorder. Our findings indicate that theorists can no longer use the case of WS to support claims that evolution has endowed the human brain with an independent face-processing module.

Highlights

  • Faces provide us with important social information

  • Typical face identification entails processing (1) the features of a face, (2) the configuration of these features or precise variations in the spacing between these features, and (3) the face holistically. The latter develops in the first months of life in typical development and is relatively proficient in individuals with Williams syndrome (WS). This has led to claims in the literature that WS presents a unique case of “impaired” and “spared” cognitive modules—with face processing being an example of a spared cognitive module

  • Holistic face processing is proficient in this population, there is evidence that featural and/or configural face processing may be atypical in older children, adolescents, and adults with this syndrome

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Faces provide us with important social information. We use them to guide our actions and to engage in social behavior. It is not surprising that faces acquire a special status among visual stimuli. Face recognition is more disrupted by stimulus inversion than is object recognition (Yin, 1969). There exist adult neuropsychological patients who lose the ability to recognize objects but not faces

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

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

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.