ABSTRACT
The main thrust of their argument is that, if one is intent on showing preserved non-face object recognition in these subjects, attention is required to both accuracy and reaction time—interestingly, similar to reservations made about the Benton Face Recognition Test some years ago. They perform two important services for the field, first in assembling and classifying the varied array of reports and methods used by different groups, and second in discussing thoughtfully the nuances involved. Indeed, Geskin and Behrmann assert that some reported developmental prosopagnosia subjects may have had more general memory problems and merited a different diagnosis. A more conceptual issue is whether one is testing recognition with the right kind of objects. Ultimately, though, logic dictates that even these findings can only strongly suggest but not definitively prove the existence of a single mechanism serving recognition of both faces and objects.
