↓ Skip to main content

Face processing improvements in prosopagnosia: successes and failures over the last 50 years

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, August 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
18 X users
wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
52 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
219 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Face processing improvements in prosopagnosia: successes and failures over the last 50 years
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, August 2014
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00561
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joseph M. DeGutis, Christopher Chiu, Mallory E. Grosso, Sarah Cohan

Abstract

Clinicians and researchers have widely believed that face processing cannot be improved in prosopagnosia. Though more than a dozen reported studies have attempted to enhance face processing in prosopagnosics over the last 50 years, evidence for effective treatment approaches has only begun to emerge. Here, we review the current literature on spontaneous recovery in acquired prosopagnosia (AP), as well as treatment attempts in acquired and developmental prosopagnosia (DP), differentiating between compensatory and remedial approaches. We find that for AP, rather than remedial methods, strategic compensatory training such as verbalizing distinctive facial features has shown to be the most effective approach (despite limited evidence of generalization). In children with DP, compensatory training has also shown some effectiveness. In adults with DP, two recent larger-scale studies, one using remedial training and another administering oxytocin, have demonstrated group-level improvements and evidence of generalization. These results suggest that DPs, perhaps because of their more intact face processing infrastructure, may benefit more from treatments targeting face processing than APs.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 219 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 215 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 70 32%
Student > Master 32 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 12%
Researcher 19 9%
Other 8 4%
Other 25 11%
Unknown 38 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 109 50%
Neuroscience 19 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 3%
Other 25 11%
Unknown 44 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 34. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 January 2024.
All research outputs
#1,164,008
of 25,104,329 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#527
of 7,623 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,402
of 236,310 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#24
of 247 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,104,329 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,623 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 236,310 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 247 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.