ABSTRACT
In their review, Geskin and Behrmann address the longstanding question of whether congenital prosopagnosia (CP) is a face-specific or domain-general disorder. Aiming to advance our understanding of the behavioural and neural mechanisms governing face cognition, an evaluation of diagnostic criteria should also carefully consider three additional important aspects discussed: processes, paradigms, and procedures. Geskin and Behrmann review reported CP cases distinguishing between studies that have assessed face processing alone, and those that have also assessed object processing. Moreover, procedural choices may affect any given process of face cognition, and to different degrees. Neglecting methodological aspects may lead to seemingly conflicting evidence, scientific debates, and unjustified conclusions, hindering genuine progress. Integrating such procedures would provide a “multifaceted perspective” to understanding brain–behaviour relationships that could significantly advance our understanding, and facilitate the diagnosis of CP in the future. Geskin and Behrmann’s timely and concise review offers invaluable insights and raises several intriguing questions.
