CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 112

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Face ethnicity and measurement reliability affect face recognition performance in developmental prosopagnosia: Evidence from the Cambridge Face Memory Test–Australian

McKone, Elinor, Hall, Ashleigh, Pidcock, Madeleine, Palermo, Romina, Wilkinson, Ross B., Rivolta, Davide, Yovel, Galit, Davis, Joshua M., O'Connor, Kirsty B.·2011·Cognitive Neuropsychology
DOI 10.1080/02643294.2011.616880
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The Cambridge Face Memory Test (CFMT, Duchaine & Nakayama, 2006) provides a validated format for testing novel face learning and has been a crucial instrument in the diagnosis of developmental prosopagnosia. Yet, some individuals who report everyday face recognition symptoms consistent with prosopagnosia, and are impaired on famous face tasks, perform normally on the CFMT. Possible reasons include measurement error, CFMT assessment of memory only at short delays, and a face set whose ethnicity is matched to only some Caucasian groups. We develop the "CFMT-Australian" (CFMT-Aus), which complements the CFMT-original by using ethnicity better matched to a different European subpopulation. Results confirm reliability (.88) and validity (convergent, divergent using cars, inversion effects). We show that face ethnicity within a race has subtle but clear effects on face processing even in normal participants (includes cross-over interaction for face ethnicity by perceiver country of origin in distinctiveness ratings). We show that CFMT-Aus clarifies diagnosis of prosopagnosia in 6 previously ambiguous cases. In 3 cases, this appears due to the better ethnic match to prosopagnosics. We also show that face memory at short (<3-min), 20-min, and 24-hr delays taps overlapping processes in normal participants. There is some suggestion that a form of prosopagnosia may exist that is long delay only and/or reflects failure to benefit from face repetition.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/02643294.2011.616880

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The two equally difficult halves of the GFMT used in the previous evaluations were adapted to exclude identities used in the Cambridge Face Memory Test-Australian (see [42]), and test version order was randomly allocated to pre- and post-training for each participant.

    “The two equally difficult halves of the GFMT used in the previous evaluations were adapted to exclude identities used in the Cambridge Face Memory Test—Australian (see [42]). One version of this modified GFMT contained 17-items (9 match, 8 non-match) and the other contained 18-items (10 match, 8 non-match). Test version order was randomly allocated to pre- and post-training for each participant.”

    From Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? (2019) · cites this paper as [42]

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 71

  1. Bate S., 2008, Cortex, 44, 806, 10.1016/j.cortex.2007.02.004 · DOI
  2. Behrmann M., 2005, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 180, 10.1016/j.tics.2005.02.011 · DOI
  3. Behrmann M., 2005, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17, 1130, 10.1162/0898929054475154 · DOI
  4. Bentin S., 2007, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19, 132, 10.1162/jocn.2007.19.1.132 · DOI
  5. Benton A. L., 1983, Contribution to neuropsychological assessment
  6. Bowles D. C., 2009, Cognitive Neuropsychology, 26, 423, 10.1080/02643290903343149 · DOI
  7. Burton A., 2010, Behavior Research Methods, 42, 286, 10.3758/BRM.42.1.286 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Carbon C.-C., 2010, Visual Cognition, 18, 641, 10.1080/13506280903462471 · DOI
  9. Chiroro P., 2008, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 1089, 10.3758/PBR.15.6.1089 · DOI
  10. Cohen J., 1993, Behavior Research Methods, 25, 257, 10.3758/BF03204507 · DOI
  11. Crawford J. R., 2002, Neuropsychologia, 40, 1196, 10.1016/S0028-3932(01)00224-X · DOI · Paper page
  12. Crawford J. R., 2009, The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 23, 1173, 10.1080/13854040902795018 · DOI
  13. Crawford J. R., 1998, The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 12, 482, 10.1076/clin.12.4.482.7241 · DOI · Paper page
  14. de Gelder B., 1998, Vision Research, 38, 2855, 10.1016/S0042-6989(97)00458-6 · DOI
  15. De Gutis J. M., 2007, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19, 1790, 10.1162/jocn.2007.19.11.1790 · DOI
  16. Delis D., 1987, California Verbal Learning Test
  17. Dennett H. W., 2011, Behavior Research Methods
  18. Diamond R., 1986, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115, 107, 10.1037/0096-3445.115.2.107 · DOI
  19. Duchaine B., 2007, Cognitive Neuropsychology, 24, 419, 10.1080/02643290701380491 · DOI
  20. Duchaine B., 2009, Neuropsychologia, 47, 2029, 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.03.011 · DOI
  21. Duchaine B., 2010, Cognitive Neuropsychology, 25, 1
  22. Duchaine B. C., 2004, Neurology, 62, 1219, 10.1212/01.WNL.0000118297.03161.B3 · DOI
  23. Duchaine B., 2006, Neuropsychologia, 44, 576, 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2005.07.001 · DOI
  24. Duchaine B. C., 2003, Neuropsychologia, 41, 713, 10.1016/S0028-3932(02)00222-1 · DOI
  25. Duchaine B., 2007, Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 2, 104, 10.1093/scan/nsm003 · DOI
  26. Germine L. T., 2010, Cognition, 118, 201, 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.11.002 · DOI
  27. Gilchrist A., 2003, Visual Cognition, 10, 769, 10.1080/13506280344000022 · DOI
  28. Herzmann G., 2008, Behavior Research Methods, 40, 840, 10.3758/BRM.40.3.840 · DOI
  29. Hildebrandt A., 2010, Psychology and Aging, 25, 794, 10.1037/a0019774 · DOI
  30. Iaria G., 2009, Neuropsychologia, 47, 30, 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.08.021 · DOI
  31. Kaplan R. M., 2005, Psychological testing principles, applications and issues
  32. Kennerknecht I., 2006, American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A, 140, 1617, 10.1002/ajmg.a.31343 · DOI
  33. Lee Y., 2010, Cortex, 46, 949, 10.1016/j.cortex.2009.07.012 · DOI
  34. Le Grand R., 2006, Brain and Cognition, 61, 139, 10.1016/j.bandc.2005.11.005 · DOI
  35. Lewin C., 2002, Brain and Cognition, 50, 121, 10.1016/S0278-2626(02)00016-7 · DOI
  36. Ley P., 1972, Quantitative aspects of psychological assessment
  37. McKelvie S. J., 1993, Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 31, 447, 10.3758/BF03334958 · DOI
  38. McKone E., 2008, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 34, 310, 10.1037/0096-1523.34.2.310 · DOI
  39. McKone E., 2010, Tutorials in visual cognition, 261
  40. McKone E., 2007, Perception, 36, 224, 10.1068/p5499 · DOI
  41. McKone E., 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 107, 4795, 10.1073/pnas.1000567107 · DOI
  42. Nunnally J. C., 1994, Psychometric theory
  43. O'Hearn K., 2010, Neuropsychologia, 48, 3955, 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2010.08.024 · DOI
  44. Palermo R., 2011, Abnormal adaptive coding of identity in congenital prosopagnosia, 10.1167/11.11.572 · DOI
  45. Palermo R., 2011, Adaptive face space coding in congenital prosopagnosia: Typical figural aftereffects but abnormal identity aftereffects
  46. Palermo R., 2011, Neuropsychologia, 49, 1226, 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2011.02.021 · DOI
  47. Pitcher D., 2007, Current Biology, 17, 1568, 10.1016/j.cub.2007.07.063 · DOI
  48. Raven J., 1998, Manual for Raven's Progressive Matrices and Vocabulary Scales
  49. Reed C., 2003, Psychological Science, 14, 302, 10.1111/1467-9280.14431 · DOI
  50. Rivolta D., Cortex
  51. Rivolta D., 2010, Neuropsychology, Development, and Cognition. Section A, Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 32, 1002
  52. Robbins R., 2007, Cognition, 103, 34, 10.1016/j.cognition.2006.02.008 · DOI
  53. Rossion B., 2009, Acta Psychologica, 132, 300, 10.1016/j.actpsy.2009.08.002 · DOI
  54. Scapinello K. F., 1970, Psychonomic Science, 21, 329, 10.3758/BF03335807 · DOI
  55. Schmalzl L., 2008, Journal of Neuropsychology, 2, 99, 10.1348/174866407X256554 · DOI
  56. Schmalzl L., 2008, Cognitive Neuropsychology, 25, 704, 10.1080/02643290802299350 · DOI
  57. Sporer S. L., 2010, Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25, 424, 10.1002/acp.1709 · DOI
  58. Sporer S. L., 2007, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38, 398, 10.1177/0022022107302310 · DOI
  59. Steede L. L., 2007, Cognitive Neuropsychology, 24, 451, 10.1080/02643290701381879 · DOI
  60. Stokes S., 2010, Journal of Vision, 10, 696, 10.1167/10.7.696 · DOI
  61. Stollhoff R., 2011, PLoS ONE, 6, e15702, 10.1371/journal.pone.0015702 · DOI
  62. Susilo T., 2011, Cognitive Neuropsychology, 27, 636, 10.1080/02643294.2011.613372 · DOI
  63. Thomas C., 2009, Nature Neuroscience, 12, 29, 10.1038/nn.2224 · DOI
  64. Valentine T., 1991, The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A, 43, 161, 10.1080/14640749108400966 · DOI
  65. Warrington E. K., 1984, Recognition Memory Test
  66. Williams M. A., 2007, Current Biology, 17, 1259, 10.1016/j.cub.2007.06.042 · DOI
  67. Wilmer J. B., 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107, 5238, 10.1073/pnas.0913053107 · DOI · Paper page
  68. Wilmer J. B., 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107, E101, 10.1073/pnas.1004299107 · DOI
  69. Yardley L., 2008, Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 65, 445, 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2008.03.013 · DOI
  70. Yovel G., 2006, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, 580, 10.1162/jocn.2006.18.4.580 · DOI
  71. Zhu Q., 2010, Current Biology, 20, 137, 10.1016/j.cub.2009.11.067 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
McKone, E., Hall, A., Pidcock, M., Palermo, R., Wilkinson, R. B., Rivolta, D., Yovel, G., Davis, J. M., & O'Connor, K. B.
Venue
Cognitive Neuropsychology
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2011-03
Volume
28
Issue
2
Pages
109-146
ISSN
  • 0264-3294
  • 1464-0627
DOI
10.1080/02643294.2011.616880
Cited by
112
References
3
Language
en

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review