Atypical prosopagnosia following right hemispheric stroke: A 23-year follow-up study with M.T.

Figures & data

Figure 1. M.T.’s MRI, as of April 17, 2015. A T1-weighted structural 3D scan was obtained using a 3T Siemens MAGNETOM Prisma scanner. Bottom right: The sagittal slice through the right hemisphere shows the location of the three horizontal slices, ordered from top left (ventral) to bottom left (more dorsal).

Table 1. Results in the face perception tasks.

Task	n	Control sample		M.T.’s score	Significance test (two-tailed) (Crawford & Howell, 1998)		Estimated percentage of the control population obtaining a lower score than the case (Crawford & Garthwaite, 2002)		Estimated effect size (zcc)
		Mean	SD		t	p	Point	(95% CI)	Point	(95% CI)
BFFT (familiar face recognition)	15	0.88^a	0.08	0.29^b	−6.80	<.001***	0,00043	(0 to 0.00054)	−6.98	(−9.58 to –4.37)
CFMT total (unfamiliar face recognition)	16	69.45	8.62	47.22	−2.50	.024*	1.22	(0.02 to 6.28)	−2.58	(−3.61 to –1.53)
GFMT overall (face matching)	16	0.73	0.11	0.7	−0.31	.764	38.2	(20.81 to 57.62)	−0.32	(−0.81 to 0.19)
TFAT unfamiliar number of stacks	16	9.25	4.75	11	0.36	.726	63.7	(44.25 to 80.77)	0.37	(−0.15 to 0.87)
TFAT familiar number of stacks	16	2.38	0.72	7	6.24	<.001***	∼100	(∼100 to ∼100)	6.43	(4.10 to 8.76)
FEEST anger	16	.71	.23	.5	−0.89	.385	19.27	(6.68 to 37.37)	−0.92	(−1.5 to −0.32)
FEEST disgust	16	.49	.27	.9	1.48	.161	91.97	(78.27 to 98.74)	1.52	(0.78 to 2.24)
FEEST fear	16	.45	.26	.5	0.19	.854	57.33	(38.05 to 75.34)	0.19	(−0.30 to 0.69)
FEEST happiness	16	.94	.07	.7	−3.25	.005**	0.27	(∼0 to 1.98)	−3.35	(−4.63 to –2.06)
FEEST sadness	16	.61	.23	.5	−0.47	.647	32.34	(16.02 to 51.76)	−0.48	(−0.99 to 0.04)
FEEST surprise	16	.83	.30	.5	−1.07	.302	15.09	(4.29 to 32.12)	−1.1	(−1,72 to −0.46)
FEEST overall	16	.67	.09	.6	−0.83	.421	21.04	(7.79 to 39.48)	-0.85	(−1.42 to –0.27)

Note: *indicates p < .05; **indicates p < .01; ***indicates p < .001.

^a Control participants were familiar with 29.2 of the 33 celebrities.

^b M.T. was familiar with 17 celebrities, similar to his performance in the famous faces tests in 1992, in which he also was familiar with many (13/18) but not all celebrities.

Figure 2. Raw test scores of M.T. (red/grey) and control participants (white) in familiar face recognition (BFFT), unfamiliar face recognition (CFMT) and face matching (GFMT). Note different scaling for the different tests. The inner box represents a boxplot with the first and third quantile including the median (thicker line) and two whiskers of 1.5 times interquartile range. The violin plots depict the kernel probability density. [To view this figure in colour, please see the online version of this journal.]

Figure 3. Raw test scores of M.T. (red/grey) and control participants (white) in familiar (TFAT familiar) and unfamiliar (TFAT unfamiliar) face processing tests. [To view this figure in colour, please see the online version of this journal.]

Figure 4. d’ test scores of M.T. (red/grey) and control participants (white) in unfamiliar voice recognition. [To view this figure in colour, please see the online version of this journal.]

Figure 5. M.T.'s z-scores for face, object and voice processing tests. Please note that positive values signify better performance than the control sample while negative values represent worse performance.

Crawford, J. R., & Howell, D. C. (1998). Comparing an individual's test score against norms derived from small samples. Clinical Neuropsychologist, 12(4), 482–486. https://doi.org/10.1076/clin.12.4.482.7241

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Crawford, J. R., & Garthwaite, P. H. (2002). Investigation of the single case in neuropsychology: Confidence limits on the abnormality of test scores and test score differences. Neuropsychologia, 40(8), 1196–1208. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0028-3932(01)00224-x. Article Pii s0028-3932(01)00224-x.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Data availability statement

Where legal conditions do not permit public archiving of anonymized study data, we will grant access to named individuals in accordance with ethical procedures governing the reuse of clinical data, upon completion of a formal data sharing agreement and approval of the local ethics committee. Readers seeking access to stimuli and data are advised to contact the last author. No part of the study procedure or analyses was pre-registered prior to the research being conducted. We report how we determined our sample and sample size, all data exclusions, all inclusion/exclusion criteria, and all manipulations.