Are people with autism prosopagnosic?

Difficulties in various face processing tasks have been well documented in autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Several meta‐analyses and numerous case–control studies have indicated that this population experiences a moderate degree of impairment, with a small percentage of studies failing to detect any impairment. One possible account of this mixed pattern of findings is heterogeneity in face processing abilities stemming from the presence of a subpopulation of prosopagnosic individuals with ASD alongside those with normal face processing skills. Samples randomly drawn from such a population, especially relatively smaller ones, would vary in the proportion of participants with prosopagnosia, resulting in a wide range of group‐level deficits from mild (or none) to severe across studies. We test this prosopagnosic subpopulation hypothesis by examining three groups of participants: adults with ASD, adults with developmental prosopagnosia (DP), and a comparison group. Our results show that the prosopagnosic subpopulation hypothesis does not account for the face impairments in the broader autism spectrum. ASD observers show a continuous and graded, rather than categorical, heterogeneity that span a range of face processing skills including many with mild to moderate deficits, inconsistent with a prosopagnosic subtype account. We suggest that pathogenic origins of face deficits for at least some with ASD differ from those of DP. Lay Summary: Face recognition challenges are well‐documented in autism spectrum disorder (ASD); however, the origin of such difficulties remains a topic of debate. Recently, it has been suggested that face identification difficulties in ASD may share the same cause as those with developmental prosopagnosia (DP), potentially defining a prosopagnosic subgroup within ASD. We show that although about one third of those on the spectrum experience severity comparable to DP, overall face ability spans from severe to mild continuously with no indication of a distinct sub‐group. These results do not lend support to a prosopagnosic subtype hypothesis of autism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]