Limits...
Processing deficits for familiar and novel faces in patients with left posterior fusiform lesions.

Roberts DJ, Lambon Ralph MA, Kim E, Tainturier MJ, Beeson PM, Rapcsak SZ, Woollams AM - Cortex (2015)

Bottom Line: Identification of famous faces was found to be compromised in both expressive and receptive tasks.Interestingly, discrimination of faces that varied in terms of feature identity was considerably better in these patients and it was performance in this condition that was related to the size of the length effects shown in reading.These results suggest that the sequential part-based processing strategy that promotes the length effect in the reading of these patients also allows them to discriminate between faces on the basis of feature identity, but processing of second-order configural information is most compromised due to their left pFG lesion.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Research Centre in Brain and Behaviour, Liverpool John Moores University, UK.

Show MeSH

Related in: MedlinePlus

Means reaction times and accuracy for nine patients and nine matched controls for the famous face (A) naming (patient accuracy range = 15–93%) and (B) matching (patient accuracy range = 63–100%). Error bars indicate ± standard error.
© Copyright Policy - CC BY
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4643682&req=5

fig4: Means reaction times and accuracy for nine patients and nine matched controls for the famous face (A) naming (patient accuracy range = 15–93%) and (B) matching (patient accuracy range = 63–100%). Error bars indicate ± standard error.

Mentions: Fig. 4 displays results for patient and control groups on naming (A) and word-face matching (B). Performance of the two groups (controls vs patients) was compared with independent samples t-tests. Relative to controls, patients had slower RTs [t(16) = −3.82, p < .001] and were less accurate [t(16) = −2.42, p < .05] for naming. Comparable t-tests for word-face matching revealed this was also the case in RT [t(16) = 3.63, p < .005] but not accuracy [t(16) = .85, p = .409]. Crawford's T statistic (Crawford, Garthwaite, & Porter, 2010) was used to determine which individual patients differed from controls for each task. These analyses revealed that the majority of patients (bar FW, JM for naming and EI, JM, TS for WPM) were impaired in relation to controls in accuracy, speed or both (see Supplementary Materials). Those patients who were unimpaired were mildest (EI, FW) and/or approaching significance on the Crawford statistic (p ≤ .10). These results are striking as the low accuracy of face naming in these cases is reminiscent (albeit milder in form) of that seen in prosopagnosic patients with right pFG lesions (Behrmann & Plaut, 2013a). The persistence of deficits in the matching tasks indicates that these face identification deficits were not the result of more general word finding difficulties.


Processing deficits for familiar and novel faces in patients with left posterior fusiform lesions.

Roberts DJ, Lambon Ralph MA, Kim E, Tainturier MJ, Beeson PM, Rapcsak SZ, Woollams AM - Cortex (2015)

Means reaction times and accuracy for nine patients and nine matched controls for the famous face (A) naming (patient accuracy range = 15–93%) and (B) matching (patient accuracy range = 63–100%). Error bars indicate ± standard error.
© Copyright Policy - CC BY
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4643682&req=5

fig4: Means reaction times and accuracy for nine patients and nine matched controls for the famous face (A) naming (patient accuracy range = 15–93%) and (B) matching (patient accuracy range = 63–100%). Error bars indicate ± standard error.
Mentions: Fig. 4 displays results for patient and control groups on naming (A) and word-face matching (B). Performance of the two groups (controls vs patients) was compared with independent samples t-tests. Relative to controls, patients had slower RTs [t(16) = −3.82, p < .001] and were less accurate [t(16) = −2.42, p < .05] for naming. Comparable t-tests for word-face matching revealed this was also the case in RT [t(16) = 3.63, p < .005] but not accuracy [t(16) = .85, p = .409]. Crawford's T statistic (Crawford, Garthwaite, & Porter, 2010) was used to determine which individual patients differed from controls for each task. These analyses revealed that the majority of patients (bar FW, JM for naming and EI, JM, TS for WPM) were impaired in relation to controls in accuracy, speed or both (see Supplementary Materials). Those patients who were unimpaired were mildest (EI, FW) and/or approaching significance on the Crawford statistic (p ≤ .10). These results are striking as the low accuracy of face naming in these cases is reminiscent (albeit milder in form) of that seen in prosopagnosic patients with right pFG lesions (Behrmann & Plaut, 2013a). The persistence of deficits in the matching tasks indicates that these face identification deficits were not the result of more general word finding difficulties.

Bottom Line: Identification of famous faces was found to be compromised in both expressive and receptive tasks.Interestingly, discrimination of faces that varied in terms of feature identity was considerably better in these patients and it was performance in this condition that was related to the size of the length effects shown in reading.These results suggest that the sequential part-based processing strategy that promotes the length effect in the reading of these patients also allows them to discriminate between faces on the basis of feature identity, but processing of second-order configural information is most compromised due to their left pFG lesion.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Research Centre in Brain and Behaviour, Liverpool John Moores University, UK.

Show MeSH
Related in: MedlinePlus