Faces are essentially very similar: two eyes above a nose and a mouth. Yet most people are really good at noticing subtle differences between faces, and interpreting accurately. This helps enormously with social interaction: we can tell who they are, if we know them, we can also tell if they are male or female, roughly what age they are, and what that person might be feeling.
In autism, deficits processing facial expressions are widely acknowledged, but there is an increasing amount of evidence for impaired facial identity recognition from scientific studies as well as personal anecdotes.
Several years ago I worked as an ABA therapist for a little girl, Clare (not her real name). She was profoundly autistic and her quirky ways and bounding energy made her popular with her classmates. Despite her popularity Clare was always getting the names of the other children mixed up. She was unconcerned by her mistakes and paid little attention to repeated corrections. But we were a little worried, figuring that after a while the other kids might be offended that she still couldn’t identify them. So, in an attempt to protect her social reputation, her mother took a photograph of each child and we Clare and I played various ‘who’s this?’ games. She did get better at naming the photographs. But I’m not sure she ever actually got better at naming the kids in real life.
A year later I found myself reviewing literature on face recognition in autism for my PhD. ‘Face recognition’ AND ‘autism’ returns over 600 hits on Web of Science. The experimental methods used in these studies varied hugely. There were memory tests, matching tests, spot-the-difference tasks. Faces were turned upside down, blurred, or shown with all the hair removed. Features were moved around or switched or presented without the face they came from. .. and the results? Some studies reported impairments, some did not.
I was confused.
Image matching
Then it occurred to me that perhaps some tasks allowed participants to do well even though they were not actually very good at facial identity recognition. At this point I got some helpful advice (and pictures of faces) from Prof Mike Burton, who at the time was with the Glasgow Face Recognition Group. The group had done some really interesting work showing that whilst people can easily match the same image of a person, they have a lot more trouble matching different images of the same person when that person is unfamiliar. So – we thought – when autistic participants do well on the face recognition tasks, are they just ‘image matching’?
![]() |
| Examples of two trials. On the left, one of the images on the bottom is the same as the top person. On the right, the bottom left image is the same person but different photo |
My first experiment tested this hypothesis. We gave kids two different versions of a simple face-matching task. They’d see one face on a computer screen. Then they’d see two more faces and have to decide which of these was the same person as the first face. In one condition, the correct face would be exactly the same image as the first face. In the other condition, the correct face would be a different image of the same person. Obviously, the second condition is more difficult, but we predicted that the effect of changing the image would be even larger than normal for autistic children because it would prevent them using an ‘image matching’ strategy.
![]() |
| Performance on the test was much better for identical images than different images, but the effect was identical for both groups. |
Hypothesis rejected.
![]() |
| Each symbol here represents a single child. Scores above -1.64 are considered to be age- appropriate. Roughly half of the autistic kids were in this "normal" range. |
But then we looked again at the results for individual children. Unsurprisingly, older children were better at the task than younger children, so we calculated age-standardized scores to show how well each child performed relative to their age. Results showed that ability level within the autism group varied enormously. Some kids were impaired, some were not and this was not accounted for by differences in intelligence.
The question for the rest of my PhD became: why are some autistic children bad at face recognition?
Eye-gaze
Probably the most interesting results came from the last study I did where I used an eyetracker to monitor where kids were looking as they did a face recognition test. One idea I tested was that performance on face recognition tasks would be associated with the amount of time participants spent gazing at the eye-region of the faces they were trying to learn. Avoiding eye-contact is a common symptom of ASD and several studies have shown that at least some autistic kids avoid looking at the eyes of people even in movies. This could be detrimental to face recognition because the eye region is thought to be particularly useful for recognising identity [PDF].
However, in our study, we found no correlation between gaze-time on the eyes and performance on the test. Another hypothesis rejected.
Dynamic scanning
So then we looked at distribution of attention across the face. Although most adults focus more on the eyes than other facial features, attention is distributed between core features of the face (eyes, nose, mouth). This is thought to build up a unified percept of the face containing information about individual features as well as their spatial relationships. A failure to distribute attention could impede successful recognition.
![]() |
| Face recognition performance was not predicted by how much people looked at the eyes of the face (a) but it was predicted by (b) the Dynamic Scanning Index |
To test this idea, we developed what we called a Dynamic Scanning Index, which indicated the number of times a participant saccaded into, and out of, a core feature interest area. We found that the kids whose eyes moved around the face more were better at recognising faces. This was true of both the autistic and the typical kids.
On average, the autistic kids had much lower Dynamic Scanning Indexes than the typically developing kids. But the autistic kids with normal scores were the ones whose face recognition skills were also OK.
We don't yet know whether there is a causal relationship between identity recognition and dynamic face scanning, and if there is, in which direction. Reduced eye-movements around faces could result in impaired recognition ability. But it's also possible that poor face recognition skills result in an individual developing unusual scan paths for faces.
Where do we go from here?
The main conclusion from my PhD was that some but not all autistic kids have difficulties with facial identity recognition. We ran several different experiments (not all discussed here) and this was the one clear result that emerged throughout. This serves as a good example of most (if not all) symptoms and characteristics of ASD: variation within autistic participant groups should be expected, and researchers should strive to explain this variation rather than searching only for overall differences between groups.
Some autistic kids did have clear face recognition problems, and a crucial question is whether interventions would be beneficial. For example, training people to move their eyes around the face might improve their recognition skills. There have been a few training studies in the past, but the results haven’t been particularly convincing. This may be because they were training the wrong skills. But it may also be that some of the people they were trying to train didn’t actually have a problem to start with.
Further reading:
An article on face-blindness in non-autistic people by Ellie's other supervisor, Romina Palermo, now at University of Western Australia
References:
Wilson CE, Palermo R, Burton AM, & Brock J (2011). Recognition of own- and other-race faces in autism spectrum disorders. Quarterly journal of experimental psychology, 64 (10), 1939-54 PMID: 21895562 PDF
Wilson CE, Palermo R, & Brock J (2012). Visual scan paths and recognition of facial identity in autism spectrum disorder and typical development. PloS one, 7 (5) PMID: 22666378 Open Access




My hunch is this is one of those questions that makes more sense if you frame it as about a nonautistic ability that autistics can learn rather than about an autistic inability. If some autistics are exposed to pressures that teach them to see people as qualitatively different from other objects, and consequently learn to pay attention to faces, you can test that by showing the same sample group photographs of non-human objects from different angles and measuring the Dynamic Scanning Index.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to see Anonymous' data but his comment is interesting. How about autism as a learning disability?
ReplyDeleteA.L.
Interesting post. You've demonstrated a very important principle; just because things have the same label it doesn't mean they are identical - e.g. people with autism, people with prosopagnosia.
ReplyDeleteJust wondering if you compared your participants' facial recognition skills with their ability to recognise a) other static items with subtle differences such as vases or landscapes or b) other subtly different objects that typically developing children learn to recognise despite them always moving and changing orientation e.g. individual dogs or cats as distinct from, say, individual houses or trees that are pretty static.
I noted that you reported one ASD participant (c in fig. 5) fixating primarily on non-feature face areas. Some people with a diagnosis of ASD have reported using peripheral vision (ie parafoveal focus) when focussing on a specific item because they experience extreme visual hyperacuity if they focus using their foveal area. I don't know exactly how your eye-tracking equipment worked, but would it be possible that the participant was actually looking at facial features, just not foveating on them? c's eye movement pattern is an inverted triangle, suggesting a fixation on eyes and mouth, but one that's spatially displaced. And what was his/her face recognition performance like?
Brings to mind the famous Klin et al eye-tracking experiments:http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/article.aspx?articleid=175576
If I recall correctly, the authors didn't rule out the possibilities that the autistic participant watching clips from 'Who's afraid of Virginia Woolf?' might be;
a) fixating on eyes but using parafoveal focus as described above - interestingly autistic participant is distracted by camera pan, and he and a child in another experiment, when scanning a room, are both distracted by high luminosity objects, supporting a parafoveal focus hypothesis.
b) have an auditory processing problem and be fixating on the mouth rather than the eyes - even if he might be unaware he was doing so.
Reference: Klin, Jones, Schulz, Volkmar & Cohen (2002). Defining and quantifying the social phenotype in autism, Am J Psychiatry, 159, 6, 895-908.
thanks for your comments - and yes, exactly - just because people have the same diagnosis doesn't mean they have the same symptoms and skills.
DeleteIn response to your first point, in another study we did test ASD and TD kids' ability to match pictures of pairs of shoes using different images, as well as different images of faces. As a group, the ASD kids were worse than the TD on both the face-matching and shoe-matching tasks, but a lot more ASD kids were impaired on the face matching than the shoe matching task. We also related this to visual scan paths on scenes showing people + objects. (this paper is published in Journal of Intellectual Disability Research. 54, 1104-1115)
Regarding your comments about whether participants could be looking at features using peripheral vision - that's an interesting question as many kids with autism do seem to peer at things out of the corner of the eye. I don't think that would be possible in this experiment though because of the way to kids have to have their heads positioned, facing the screen, and if the head moved too much we would need to recalibrate. That doesn't exactly anser your question though, and I'm not sure exactly how you could test that. The point is, though, that the kids that the dynamic scanning index was correlated with performance on the recognition task, suggeting that even if it were possible to be looking at the features without fixating on them this doesn't seem to be helpful for recognising the faces.
RE Klin et al's paper and the hypothesis of looking at mouth rather than eyes - we tested that here as well and our results didn't support the hypothesis. Doesn't mean some kids don't do that though. Also some might look at the mouth not because of an auditory processing problem but because they like don't like eye-contact.
As a non-autistic person who has a lifelong problem with facial recognition and auditory processing problems, I find the second explanation rather fascinating. It never occurred to me that my hearing and visual problems might be linked!
DeletePlease find a cure ASAP. : - )
In this video lecture, Klin presents results from a number of their studies, including data correlating visual attention with the amount of audio-visual synchrony. Guess which part of the face has the highest amount of av synch?
Deletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8BiE6X7600
I think that some of these children dont have much of a symbolic thought because some cannot remember faces/images that they've just seen. Theres absolutely nothing wrong with that because adults have the same problem. Using objects, words, or images (in this case) usually doesnt kick in until your about 7 or so. Also, the children may not be having a strong focus on these images. They could be looking at only the nose or the eyes that a different image may have. This could be an example of centration. I wouldnt neccesarily call this a form of disorder, just a slight disadvantage.
ReplyDeleteTurn the faces upside down. How many do you recognize? Really. Try it.
ReplyDeleteThat's true - it changes everything! Turing faces upside down is a really common way to disrupt face processing (thought to disrupt configural, or holistic, processing) - used in a lot of those 600+ face experiments! Popular illusion is the 'Thatcher illusion'...
DeleteThis post was so interesting! Face blindness is more common than you think! Not only in autistic children but with other people too! We were actually just talking about this in my psychology class because my psyc teacher has face blindness! Its interesting to read the different experiments you did with the kids and really see how their brain and thinking process works! I wonder how autisitc children form attatchment and form emotional bonds? I guess it would be a different way because they don't really look at facial details! So cool to learn about! I really enjoyed reading this post!
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comments Amie! see below...
Delete@AmieC
ReplyDeleteThere was a special issue of the Journal of Neuropsychology http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jnp.2008.2.issue-1/issuetoc
(worth looking at) which suggested that the prevalence of prosopagnosia in the whole population is around 3% and that there are different types and degrees of prosopagnosia.
Also, there's a substantial literature on autism and attachment (just google <>, but bear in mind that not all children with autistic characteristics have prosopagnosia, not all prosopagnosia is the same, and that the ways in which autistic children form attachments and emotional bonds are many and varied. There's been some work on this by Oppenheim et al e.g. http://is.gd/3aIsek
Exactly - not all people with autism have prosopagnosia, and there are different kinds of prosopagnosia. In one study we looked at this the other way round and tested whether kids with proposagnosia had autistic traits. Face recognition difficulties in isolation are quite difficult to pick-up, especially in children, so not much is known about this at the moment. However from a small group of 5 kids with face recognition problems, 2 actually met criteria for autism. 2 others had object recognition probs too. Raises questions about how symptoms of developmental disorders might interact. (This is in Cognitive Neuropsychology(2010), 27(1), 30-45, if you're interested).
DeleteDownloadable here!
Deletehttps://sites.google.com/site/drjonbrock/publications/specificity-of-impaired-facial-identity-recognition-in-children-with-suspected-developmental-prosopagnosia/Wilson2010CognitiveNeuropsychology-1.pdf?attredirects=0
Thank you Ellie. I'd just like to come back on one point re peripheral vision: opthalmologists can, and do, measure the difference between the fixation point and the fovea. See, for example http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2211007 and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2970516/
ReplyDeleteAlso, note that premature babies have foveal abnormalities http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10406630
I have no idea whether or not this is associated with difficulty in recognising faces, but it is a factor that I think should be taken into account when using visual fixation techniques, especially with children with developmental disorders.
thanks for your comments + for the references. It's an interesting idea and I'm afraid I don't know if we could have extracted that info from our data. I think visual hyperacuity/hypersensitivty is relevant to a subset of ASD individuals - so again it could be interesting to see if these individuals in particular were using peripheral vision. Next time...
DeleteThis is a very interesting topic for me, as I have prosopagnosia and aspergers. The former was apparent to me long before I knew about asperger's, but since then I have often wondered at the connection. Clearly not everyone with asperger's has it, but I do wonder if there is an association. In terms of learning skills I certainly have come up with coping skills in an attempt to mitigate the effects of prosopagnosia, especially at work. I am convinced that it's not about simply not looking at people's faces (though I tend not to as much as most people, as far as I can tell). I think I don't look at faces as much because I don't get as much information from them as other people do. HOWEVER, I do in fact scrutinize people very hard when I'm making a conscious effort to remember them or figure out who they are, or what they are talking about, etc. I know that I have trouble with faces and I spend extra time to combat this. But the things I remember are specific things that I categorize (and even write down in some cases), I know from talking to other people that this is not how they recognize people, from a list of traits that they've chosen to focus on. I do much better with people I consider "distinctive looking" because I can pick some trait of theirs to focus on, vs "generic looking" people (who often don't look generic to others) who are very hard for me to tell apart, especially if they adopt a common pattern of speaking. I did not do these things when I was a very young kid because I didn't know about them and I hadn't yet realized my recognition abilities were different than other people's. I did get myself into a lot of awkward situations that way due to lack of that knowledge. My mother told me (as an adult) that she had simply assumed that I never knew who people were because I was "not interested" in people, but the truth is I very much was and in many cases made a concerted effort to identify and recognize people that I cared about, it just didn't work very well.
ReplyDeleteYour experiences of face recognition problems coming across as 'lack of interest in people' - often considered an autistic trait - really illustrate how difficulties in autism / prosopagnosia (or other conditions) might exacerbate each other. Also you say you put in extra effort to try and recognise people you cared about (perhaps not always successfully until you had worked out your strategies), but you probably didn't, or couldn't, for people that weren't so close to you. I guess that unfortunately this came across as aloof or disinterested (or perhaps just shy?) to those people? It sounds like you had similar problems to the girl ('Clare') that I'm talking about in this post - although I don't think she made the effort even for people she clearly liked a lot. Maybe she will as she gets older. Although, she did often miss-recognised people , usually massively over-generalising (e.g. any very tall man with black hair was her uncle), perhaps this was her starting to recognise people in a distinctive trait-wise fashion like you?
DeleteAlso I have noticed the same issue you did with many prosopagnosia tests. I am very good at comparisons of the "find the difference" type where the image is the same. The problem is real people do not look like this, they always look different. In fact even if I can tell people are the same in different photos (which is a process of elimination based on who else is pictured), I frequently can't identify people in real life based on a photo of them. It does narrow things down, so it's helpful (hair color and style if they haven't changed it, male/female, etc) but a photo does not give me the main things I rely on for identification, like how big they are compared to me, voice, way of moving, etc. If I look at a picture of someone I have never seen and then meet them, I am frequently completely thrown by what image I've mentally assembled based on the photo.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of using characteristics in comparison to your own (e.g. height, size) is something that makes a lot of sense and something I haven't thought about before. It's probably something we all do to some degree, I don't know if anyone has done any research on this? The research team at Glasgow have been doing some work testing how well people can recognise real people based on passport photos - not particularly well, I think. Thanks for these comments - you've really demonstrated how recognising people is in fact a very complex task with a lot of contributing information!
ReplyDeleteThe article on prosopagnosia was interesting. The Science Channel in the US there was a documentary on prosopagnosia including an interview with Oliver Sachs who recounted his problems. He would occasionally look in the mirror and not recognize his own face.He also discussed the strategies he developed to spare himself and others the embarrasment of his not recognizing people who he had previously met.
ReplyDeleteThat raises an important point in the efforts, so far unsuccesful, to identify the core deficit in autism. Take the phenomena of transient echolalia and pronoun reversal in very young autistic children. If you look at the literature in other medical conditions you would find that echolalia and pronoun reversal is also found in other conditions including some stroke patients, brain tumor patients and Alzheimer patients. What you don't see in these patients that you in the autism litersature is the literally hundreds of papers in autism trying to interpret the meaning of echolalia and pronoun reversal through psychological or psychiatric theory.
Here are two studies showing improvments in Face Recognition after playing a computer game intervention, one a randomized controlled study with 49 school aged students with an ASD
ReplyDeletehttp://download.springer.com/static/pdf/498/art%253A10.1007%252Fs10803-011-1179-z.pdf?auth66=1355188488_c5b80d92d7936f63187dff1c1dfe0689&ext=.pdf
and one a single subject study with a school aged boy with prosapognosia. This paper does not mention a second boy who did not improve.
http://www.visionsciences.org/abstract_detail.php?id=1348
I'm glad you posted that link to the Klin et al (2000) paper with your story, Ellie. That article sort of agrees with my long time personal theory of one of the basic problems common to many people diagnosed as "autistic". I think they may lack either some basic wiring or have a functional problem knowing what is important for humans to attend to. I call this "salience" for lack of a better term and I think it helps explain why autistic people often don't use the triangular face scan when gazing at faces or interacting with people, even their parents/siblings. For some children who are quite intellectually impaired as well as autistic (I've met far more of those than high--functioning ones), seem not to know what is relevant to them in the environment either. This might explain some kids' emotional difficulty with new things and people, and re-arrangements of objects- they seem to cling to sameness as though it is a matter of life and death for them. Evolutionarily, this skill would have been vital for human survival- those lacking it would have died young or been killed by circumstance or predator- all animals seem to know what is relevant in the environment, with humans having the largest learned component of this because we have shed our instincts for better adaptability. was doing a PhD in the late 70s/early 80s in Adelaide, trying to gather evidence via analysis of videos on where young autistic children were looking and whether they could follow gaze, a finger pointing, the ritual of handing over an object and pointing for themselves. I analysed all the data, comparing the autistic kids with developmentally normal babies/toddlers and Down's Syndrome matched nonverbal IQ controls (I used the Leiter International Performance Scale and the Piagetian Sensorimotor Stages test- I think someone Italian developed it- forgotten!). Because life was primitive then [lol], I couldn't use eye-movement tracking technology to judge gaze direction and needed to use an independent observer to check my tapes. I conclude that autistic children did not find nonverbal communication via eyes/gaze direction/hands as attention-grabbing/salient as their nonverbal matched Down's or normal kids. The highly verbal IQ autistic kids were reasonably good at looking at faces and hands for information and could point and exchange objects by hand with their carers but they still looked all over the place as well. Maybe they had learned what to do but didn't really know why this was the correct behaviour- going through the motions. I had a discussion with Neal O'Connor when he was in Adelaide once and he was quite intrigued- we talked about the 'match-to-sample' vs. being able to match groups of stimuli seen from different directions- he used his pet example of autistic kids not recognising a birthday cake on a cakestand when it was OK on a flat plate! Anyway I never finished the degree- couldn't get adequate supervision, got depressed etc as many people do. However, it's great to see the science of autism advancing all the time as with your work and I hope someone can get closer to this question of whether there is something wrong with some kids' neuron connections or the switching mechanisms involved in recognition. The comments of qatheworld above felt like they were close to my idea that autistic eyes/brains don't have the same ideas of what is relevant to them- where the most information is located - so the successful ones at face processing may be using alternative strategies such as his/hers. This sort of work gets me all excited all over again about the topic of 'what makes autistic people autistic?'! More senior postgrad students thought I was insane studying this topic and always said "But what are their main sensory cues?" and I always had to say "No one has really established that yet" and they'd shake their heads not believing me.
ReplyDelete