Literature DB >> 36202620

Not so fast! Response times in the computerized Benton Face Recognition Test may not reflect face recognition ability.

Joseph DeGutis1,2, Xian Li1,2,3, Bar Yosef1,2, Maruti V Mishra1,2,4.   

Abstract

Response times (RTs) are commonly used to assess cognitive abilities, though it is unclear whether face processing RTs predict recognition ability beyond accuracy. In the current study, we examined accuracy and RT on a widely used face matching assessment modified to collect meaningful RT data, the computerized Benton Facial Recognition Test (BFRT-c), and measured whether RTs predicted face recognition ability and developmental prosopagnosia (DP) vs. control group membership. 62 controls and 36 DPs performed the BFRT-c as well as validated measures of face recognition ability: the Cambridge Face Memory Test (CFMT) and a Famous Faces Memory Test (FFMT). In controls, BFRT-c accuracy robustly predicted CFMT (r = .49, p < .001), FFMT (r = .43, p < .001), and a CFMT-FFMT composite (r = .54, p < .001), whereas BFRT-c RT was not significantly associated with these measures (all r's  .21). We also found that BFRT-c accuracy significantly differed between DPs and controls, but RT failed to differentiate the groups.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Developmental prosopagnosia; face matching; face perception; face recognition; individual differences; response time

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 36202620      PMCID: PMC9557987          DOI: 10.1080/02643294.2022.2114824

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cogn Neuropsychol        ISSN: 0264-3294            Impact factor:   3.750


  49 in total

1.  About-face on face recognition ability and holistic processing.

Authors:  Jennifer J Richler; R Jackie Floyd; Isabel Gauthier
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 2.240

2.  The Cambridge Face Memory Test: results for neurologically intact individuals and an investigation of its validity using inverted face stimuli and prosopagnosic participants.

Authors:  Brad Duchaine; Ken Nakayama
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  2005-09-19       Impact factor: 3.139

3.  A diffusion model explanation of the worst performance rule for reaction time and IQ.

Authors:  Roger Ratcliff; Florian Schmiedek; Gail McKoon
Journal:  Intelligence       Date:  2008

Review 4.  Reaction time in differential and developmental research: A review and commentary on the problems and alternatives.

Authors:  Christopher Draheim; Cody A Mashburn; Jessie D Martin; Randall W Engle
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  2019-03-21       Impact factor: 17.737

5.  The inversion, part-whole, and composite effects reflect distinct perceptual mechanisms with varied relationships to face recognition.

Authors:  Constantin Rezlescu; Tirta Susilo; Jeremy B Wilmer; Alfonso Caramazza
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2017-04-13       Impact factor: 3.332

6.  A comparison of methods to combine speed and accuracy measures of performance: A rejoinder on the binning procedure.

Authors:  André Vandierendonck
Journal:  Behav Res Methods       Date:  2017-04

7.  Impairment in facial recognition in patients with cerebral disease.

Authors:  A L Benton; M W Van Allen
Journal:  Trans Am Neurol Assoc       Date:  1968

8.  An update of the Benton Facial Recognition Test.

Authors:  Ebony Murray; Rachel Bennetts; Jeremy Tree; Sarah Bate
Journal:  Behav Res Methods       Date:  2021-12-16

9.  The roles of perceptual and conceptual information in face recognition.

Authors:  Linoy Schwartz; Galit Yovel
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  2016-10-03

10.  Measuring Ability, Speed, or Both? Challenges, Psychometric Solutions, and What Can Be Gained From Experimental Control.

Authors:  Frank Goldhammer
Journal:  Measurement ( Mahwah N J)       Date:  2015-12-07
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.