Evaluation of Face and Voice Perception and Recognition Impairments in Prosopagnosia (S19.005)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Examining the extent and relationship of face and voice discrimination and recognition in acquired prosopagnosic patients. BACKGROUND: Patients with right or bilateral anterior temporal damage can complain of impaired face recognition, with relatively preserved face discrimination. Whether this represents an associative variant of prosopagnosia or a multi-modal semantic deficit in people recognition has been questioned. Although many patients claim to recognize people by voice, few have had objective evaluation of voice recognition. DESIGN/METHODS: We developed two tests of voice processing: a test of voice perception that involved matching to sample, and a test of short-term memory for voices, similar in principle to the Warrington Recognition Memory Test. We tested 70 control subjects aged 19-70 years, and derived age-adjusted 95% prediction intervals. We then examined 9 patients with a variety of occipital and anterior temporal lesions and complaints of impaired face recognition. RESULTS: All prosopagnosic patients with lesions limited to the fusiform gyri had intact voice perception and recognition. Two patients had impaired voice recognition but intact voice perception, and hence may have had a multi-modal semantic deficit: both had bilateral anterior temporal lesions. One patient with bilateral fusiform and anterior temporal lesions had impaired voice recognition, but also had impaired voice perception: hence her voice deficits may have been due to a second perceptual problem rather than a semantic deficit. One patient with right anterior temporal lesion only had normal voice perception and recognition. CONCLUSIONS: Voice recognition impairments consistent with a possible multimodal semantic deficit was found only in two subjects with bilateral anterior temporal lesions. A unilateral right anterior temporal lesion can cause a defect that is selective for face recognition and spares voice recognition, consistent with an associative form of prosopagnosia. Study Supported by: JB was supported by a Canada Research Chair and the Marianne Koerner Chair in Brain Diseases. RL was supported by grants from Fight for Sight and American Academy of Neurology SIGN program.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".