Biotti, Federica.Pdf
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
City Research Online City, University of London Institutional Repository Citation: Biotti, F. (2018). Understanding the cognitive mechanisms of developmental prosopagnosia. (Unpublished Doctoral thesis, City, University of London) This is the accepted version of the paper. This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. Permanent repository link: https://openaccess.city.ac.uk/id/eprint/21802/ Link to published version: Copyright: City Research Online aims to make research outputs of City, University of London available to a wider audience. Copyright and Moral Rights remain with the author(s) and/or copyright holders. URLs from City Research Online may be freely distributed and linked to. Reuse: Copies of full items can be used for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge. Provided that the authors, title and full bibliographic details are credited, a hyperlink and/or URL is given for the original metadata page and the content is not changed in any way. City Research Online: http://openaccess.city.ac.uk/ [email protected] Understanding the cognitive mechanisms of developmental prosopagnosia Federica Biotti Submitted to City, University of London for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Psychology September 2018 Abstract Developmental prosopagnosia (DP) is a condition associated with severe difficulties recognising familiar faces, which occurs in individuals with normal intelligence, typical low-level vision, and in the absence of manifest brain injuries. The neuro-cognitive origins of DP are still debated. Cognitive accounts have attributed face recognition deficits to reduced holistic processing of faces (i.e., whereby individual features of faces are integrated into a unified perceptual whole), and mnemonic difficulties, whereby prosopagnosics may be able to form accurate percepts, but are unable to maintain those percepts over time. At the neurological level, differences have been reported in the structural and functional connectivity of occipito-temporal regions which include face selective areas. Chapter 2 of this thesis investigated facial emotion recognition in DP and revealed widespread difficulties recognising facial emotion in individuals with apperceptive profiles of DP (i.e., DPs exhibiting difficulties forming view-invariant structural descriptions of faces at early stages of encoding). Chapter 3 explored body recognition in DP and found evidence of impaired body and object recognition in DP individuals. Moreover, the lack of relationship between observers’ object and body recognition performances suggested that body and object recognition impairments in DP may co-occur independently. Chapter 4 investigated the susceptibility to the composite face illusion in two independent samples of individuals with DP and failed to show evidence of diminished composite face effects in both samples. Finally, Chapter 5 considered the contribution of perceptual encoding and short term face memory in DP using a delayed match-to-sample task and found that recognition impairments in prosopagnosics were insensitive to changes in retention interval and viewing angle, supporting an apperceptive characterisation of DP. The implications of these findings for the characterisation of DP and for understanding its underlying cognitive mechanisms, are discussed in Chapter 6. 1 Acknowledgements I am grateful to City, University of London for granting me a Doctoral Studentship, allowing me to complete this PhD. I am also very appreciative of the enormous help provided by all the people who took part in the studies presented in this thesis. Without their precious contribution, this work would not have been possible. Big thanks go to all the other psychology PhD students at City University who accompanied me throughout this journey, providing motivation and encouragement. In particular, thanks to Albert for inspiring me to aim higher, to Lucia and Lana for their sincere support, and to Rami and Alex for their precious advice. Thanks to my ‘science buddies’ Sophie, Rosy, and Dan whose success as young researchers has been a huge motivation in pursuing an academic career. I am extremely grateful to Rebecca Brewer, for her continuous help and encouragement, and for believing in me since the beginning. I am thankful to all my collaborators who brilliantly contributed to the studies presented in this thesis, including Brad Duchaine, Esther Wu, Hua Yang, and Guo Jiahui. Thanks to Katie Gray, for her precious theoretical inputs and for providing substantial support with data analysis and data collection. Finally, I am extremely grateful to my supervisor Richard Cook, for his immense support, for the enormous amount of time he dedicated to my work and for being such a brilliant supervisor. His method and scrupulousness shaped me as a researcher. I have been very lucky to be his PhD student. Thanks to all my wonderful friends for believing in me and supporting me with insightful advice and laughter. The biggest thanks go to my wonderful family. To my parents, for giving me everything and more to achieve my dreams, for their constant support and for their infinite love. This would not have been possible without them. Finally, thanks to Arash for truly believing in me, for giving me lots of encouragement especially during the last part of this PhD, and for always being there with unconditional love. 2 Authors contributions Chapter 2: Study design was conducted by Richard Cook and myself. I created the stimuli and RC helped perfecting the stimuli and programming the experimental paradigm. I collected the data and ran the analyses, under the supervision of RC. I drafted the manuscript, which was then edited and finalised by RC. Chapter 3: RC and I designed the experiment. Stimuli were created by RC and myself. RC programmed the experimental paradigm. I collected the data and analysed the results, under the supervision of RC. All authors were involved in the interpretation of the analyses. I drafted the manuscript for publication, which was edited by all authors. Chapter 4: Esther Wu and I contributed equally to the study. RC and I designed, created the stimuli and programmed the experimental procedure for Experiment 1. I collected the data and conducted the analyses for Experiment 1, under the supervision of RC. EW, Hua Yang, Guo Jiahui and Brad Duchaine designed Experiment 2. EW, HY and GJ collected the data and conducted the analyses for Experiment 2, under the supervision of BD. All authors contributed to the interpretation of the analyses. EW and I drafted the manuscript, which was then edited by RC and BD. Chapter 5: RC and I designed the experiment. Stimuli were created by RC and I. RC programmed the experimental paradigm. Katie Gray and I collected the data and analysed the results. All authors were involved in the interpretation of the analyses. I drafted the manuscript for publication, which was edited by all authors. 3 Declarations This thesis is submitted to City, University of London in support of my application for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. It has been composed by myself and has not been submitted in any previous application for any degree. This thesis is composed by a series of published papers, with the exception of Chapter 5 which is currently in revision. The experimental chapters 2-4 are exact copies of the final version of the manuscripts accepted for publication, and are available as published journal articles on the relevant journal websites. As well as the introduction and discussion sections that are specific to each article, this thesis includes a general introduction, providing an overview of the literature relevant to the experimental chapters, and a general discussion of the main findings, interpretations, limitations and outstanding questions. 4 Table of contents Abstract………………………………………………………………………………………1 Acknowledgments……………………………………………………………………………2 Authors contributions...............................................................................................................3 About this thesis.......................................................................................................................4 Table of contents……………………………………………………………………………..5 Table of tables………………………………………………………………………………11 Table of figures......................................................................................................................13 Chapter 1. General Introduction……………………………………………………………16 1.1 Background……………………………………………………………………………..16 1.2 Diagnostic criteria ………………………………………………………………………18 1.2.1 Computerised tests....................................................................................................18 1.2.1.1 Testing of unfamiliar face recognition...............................................................18 1.2.1.2 Testing of familiar face recognition...................................................................20 1.2.2 Self-report measures………………………………………………………………21 1.2.3 Convergence of diagnostic evidence.......................................................................22 1.3 Perceptual and cognitive accounts of DP……………………………………………….23 1.3.1 Is DP due to a low-level visual deficit?.................................................................23 1.3.2 Is DP due to diminished acquisition of perceptual expertise?...............................25 1.3.3 Apperceptive accounts of DP……………………………………………………27 1.3.3.1 Holistic processing………………………………………………………….28 1.3.1.1.1 The