Essay On Prosopagnosia

1084 Words3 Pages

Prosopagnosia
A Review of the Literature

Acquired Prosopagnosia vs. Developmental Prosopagnosia
Acquired prosopagnosia refers to when the onset of prosopagnosic symptoms occur after brain trauma, resulting in damage to the cortex of the brain from hitting the inside of the skull (Bodamer, 1947). It can also refer to the initiation of symptoms after brain tissue dies (ischemia) such as from loss of blood supply like from a stroke, or a neurodegenerative disease (Villa et al., 2013, pg. 375).
Developmental prosopagnosia, also referred to as congenital prosopagnosia or even hereditary prosopagnosia, is characterized by no apparent brain damage that might cause the symptoms. Developmental prosopagnosia seems to affect mostly Caucasians (Kennerknecht, Ho & Wong, 2008, pg. 2863), and about 2% of the population- to put it in perspective, the same percentage as that of dyslexia (Grüter, 2010, pg. 511) (Susilo & Duchaine 2013, pg. 423) (Kennerknecht, Ho & Wong, 2008, pg. 2863). The difference between the terms developmental prosopagnosia, congenital prosopagnosia, and hereditary prosopagnosia depends on when one believes the disorder affects the brain; developmental prosopagnosia is a more general term, describing the cause of symptoms as being a result of “anomalies occurring at any time during the development of the mechanisms used for face recognition,” (Susilo & Duchaine, 2013, pg. 425). Congenital prosopagnosia refers to the theory of prosopagnosia being present at birth or early infancy (Susilo & Duchaine, 2013, pg. 425). Hereditary prosopagnosia is, quite clearly, a growing research area at the moment, linking prosopagnosia to a gene. Some evidence shows a very high correlation of prosopagnosia in first-degree relatives (Kenner...

... middle of paper ...

...re either out of date or present controversial evidence (Grüter et al., 2008, pg. 82) (Dalrymple, 2010, pg. 2554-2555) (Rossion, 2008). The specific contributions of each structure is highly debated and continuously being researched. It is agreed upon that damage to any combination of these area is necessary and sufficient to produce facial recognition deficits (Rossion, 2008, pg. 424). Common ways to test the activity in the brain when it is processing faces is by using different event related potentials. One such ERP is the N170, which is believed to be particularly more sensitive to faces than to objects (Towler et al., 2012) (Dalrymple, 2010). However, researchers are not convinced that it actually is face specific (Earp, 2013). The p300 is used as well to test how long it takes the brain to recognize a face after being exposed (Towler et al., 2012, pg. 3588).

Open Document