English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Response times (RTs) are commonly used to assess cognitive abilities, though it is unclear whether face processing RTs predict recognition ability beyond accuracy. In the current study, we examined accuracy and RT on a widely used face matching assessment modified to collect meaningful RT data, the computerized Benton Facial Recognition Test (BFRT-c), and measured whether RTs predicted face recognition ability and developmental prosopagnosia (DP) vs. control group membership. 62 controls and 36 DPs performed the BFRT-c as well as validated measures of face recognition ability: the Cambridge Face Memory Test (CFMT) and a Famous Faces Memory Test (FFMT). In controls, BFRT-c accuracy robustly predicted CFMT (r = .49,  p  &lt; .001), FFMT (r = .43,  p  &lt; .001), and a CFMT-FFMT composite (r = .54,  p  &lt; .001), whereas BFRT-c RT was not significantly associated with these measures (all r's  .21). We also found that BFRT-c accuracy significantly differed between DPs and controls, but RT failed to differentiate the groups.

Not so fast! Response times in the computerized Benton Face Recognition Test may not reflect face recognition ability