In recent years there has been growing interest in the identification of people with superior face recognition skills, for both theoretical and applied investigations. These individuals have mostly been identified via their performance on a single attempt at a tightly controlled test of face memory—the long form of the Cambridge Face Memory Test (CFMT+). The consistency of their skills over a range of tests, particularly those replicating more applied policing scenarios, has yet to be examined systematically. The current investigation screened 200 people who believed they have superior face recognition skills, using the CFMT+ and three new, more applied tests (measuring face memory, face matching and composite-face identification in a crowd). Of the sample, 59.5% showed at least some consistency in superior face recognition performance, although only five individuals outperformed controls on overall indices of target-present and target-absent trials. Only one participant outperformed controls on the Crowds test, suggesting that some applied face recognition tasks require very specific skills. In conclusion, future screening protocols need to be suitably thorough to test for consistency in performance, and to allow different types of superior performer to be detected from the outset. Screening for optimal performers may sometimes need to directly replicate the task in question, taking into account target-present and target-absent performance. Self-selection alone is not a reliable means of identifying those at the top end of the face recognition spectrum.

In the last 15 years, increasing numbers of individuals have self-referred to research laboratories in the belief that they experience severe everyday difficulties with face recognition. The condition “developmental prosopagnosia” (DP) is typically diagnosed when impairment is identified on at least two objective face-processing tests, usually involving assessments of face perception, unfamiliar face memory, and famous face recognition. While existing evidence suggests that some individuals may have a mnemonic form of prosopagnosia, it is also possible that other subtypes exist. The current study assessed 165 adults who believe they experience DP, and 38% of the sample were impaired on at least two of the tests outlined above. While statistical dissociations between face perception and face memory were only observed in four cases, a further 25% of the sample displayed dissociations between impaired famous face recognition and intact short-term unfamiliar face memory and face perception. We discuss whether this pattern of findings reflects (a) limitations within dominant diagnostic tests and protocols, (b) a less severe form of DP, or (c) a currently unrecognized but prevalent form of the condition that affects long-term face memory, familiar face recognition or semantic processing.

Approximately 2–2.5% of the adult population is believed to show severe difficulties with face recognition, in the absence of any neurological injury—a condition known as developmental prosopagnosia (DP). However, to date no research has attempted to estimate the prevalence of face recognition deficits in children, possibly because there are very few child-friendly, well-validated tests of face recognition. In the current study, we examined face and object recognition in a group of primary school children (aged 5–11 years), to establish whether our tests were suitable for children and to provide an estimate of face recognition difficulties in children. In Experiment 1 ( n = 184), children completed a pre-existing test of child face memory, the Cambridge Face Memory Test–Kids (CFMT-K), and a bicycle test with the same format. In Experiment 2 ( n = 413), children completed three-alternative forced-choice matching tasks with faces and bicycles. All tests showed good psychometric properties. The face and bicycle tests were well matched for difficulty and showed a similar developmental trajectory. Neither the memory nor the matching tests were suitable to detect impairments in the youngest groups of children, but both tests appear suitable to screen for face recognition problems in middle childhood. In the current sample, 1.2–5.2% of children showed difficulties with face recognition; 1.2–4% showed face-specific difficulties—that is, poor face recognition with typical object recognition abilities. This is somewhat higher than previous adult estimates: It is possible that face matching tests overestimate the prevalence of face recognition difficulties in children; alternatively, some children may “outgrow” face recognition difficulties.

Developmental prosopagnosia (DP) is a cognitive condition characterized by a relatively selective impairment in face recognition. Currently, people are screened for DP via a single attempt at objective face-processing tests, usually all presented on the same day. However, several variables probably influence performance on these tests irrespective of actual ability, and the influence of repeat administration is also unknown. Here, we assess, for the first known time, the test–retest reliability of the Cambridge Face Memory Test (CFMT)—the leading task used worldwide to diagnose DP. This value was found to fall just below psychometric standards, and single-case analyses revealed further inconsistencies in performance that were not driven by testing location (online or in-person), nor the time-lapse between attempts. Later administration of an alternative version of the CFMT (the CFMT-Aus) was also found to be valuable in confirming borderline cases. Finally, we found that performance on the first 48 trials of the CFMT was equally as sensitive as the full 72-item score, suggesting that the instrument may be shortened for testing efficiency. We consider the implications of these findings for existing diagnostic protocols, concluding that two independent tasks of unfamiliar face memory should be completed on separate days.

Developmental prosopagnosia (DP) is characterised by a severe and relatively selective deficit in face recognition, in the absence of neurological injury. Because public and professional awareness of DP is low, many adults and children are not identified for formal testing. This may partly result from the lack of appropriate screening tools that can be used by non-experts in either professional or personal settings. To address this issue, the current study sought to (a) explore when DP can first be detected in oneself and another, and (b) identify a list of the condition’s everyday behavioural manifestations. Questionnaires and interviews were administered to large samples of adult DPs, their unaffected significant others, and parents of children with the condition; and data were analysed using inductive content analysis. It was found that DPs have limited insight into their difficulties, with most only achieving realisation in adulthood. Nevertheless, the DPs’ reflections on their childhood experiences, together with the parental responses, revealed specific indicators that can potentially be used to spot the condition in early childhood. These everyday hallmark symptoms may aid the detection of individuals who would benefit from objective testing, in oneself (in adults) or another person (for both adults and children).