One contribution of 16 to a theme issue 'Interoception beyond homeostasis: affect, cognition and mental health'.
Traditional cognitive tests may not be sensitive for the early detection of executive and social cognitive impairments in the behavioural variant of frontotemporal dementia. The aim of this study was to detect specific executive and social cognitive deficits in patients with early behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia using a battery of tests previously shown to be sensitive to frontal lobe dysfunction. Behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia patients and paired controls were assessed with a complete standard neuropsychological battery evaluating attention, memory, visuospatial abilities, language and executive functions. All participants were then assessed with our Executive and Social Cognition Battery, which included Theory of Mind tests (Mind in the Eyes, Faux Pas), the Hotel Task, Multiple Errands Task-hospital version and the Iowa Gambling Task for complex decision-making. Patients were divided into two groups according to their Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination scores, a measure of general cognitive status. Low Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination patients differed from controls on most tasks of the standard battery and the Executive and Social Cognition Battery. While high Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination patients did not differ from controls on most traditional neuropsychological tests, significant differences were found between this high-functioning behavioural variant of frontotemporal dementia group and controls on most measures of our Executive and Social Cognition Battery. Our results suggest that the Executive and Social Cognition Battery used in this study is more sensitive in detecting executive and social cognitive impairment deficits in early behavioural variant of frontotemporal dementia than the classical cognitive measures.
Many tests of specific ‘executive functions’ show deficits after frontal lobe lesions. These deficits appear on a background of reduced fluid intelligence, best measured with tests of novel problem solving. For a range of specific executive tests, we ask how far frontal deficits can be explained by a general fluid intelligence loss. For some widely used tests, e.g. Wisconsin Card Sorting, we find that fluid intelligence entirely explains frontal deficits. When patients and controls are matched on fluid intelligence, no further frontal deficit remains. For these tasks too, deficits are unrelated to lesion location within the frontal lobe. A second group of tasks, including tests of both cognitive (e.g. Hotel, Proverbs) and social (Faux Pas) function, shows a different pattern. Deficits are not fully explained by fluid intelligence and the data suggest association with lesions in the right anterior frontal cortex. Understanding of frontal lobe deficits may be clarified by separating reduced fluid intelligence, important in most or all tasks, from other more specific impairments and their associated regions of damage.
Although several brief sensitive screening tools are available to detect cognitive dysfunction, few have been developed to quickly assess executive functioning (EF) per se. We designed a new brief tool to evaluate EF in neurodegenerative diseases. Patients with an established diagnosis of behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD; n = 22), Alzheimer disease (AD; n = 25), and controls (n = 26) were assessed with a cognitive screening test, the INECO Frontal Screening (IFS), and EF tests. Clinical Dementia Rating Scale (CDR) scores were obtained for all patients. Internal consistency of the IFS was very good (Cronbach's alpha = .80). IFS total (out of 30 points) was 27.4 (SD = 1.6) for controls, 15.6 (SD = 4.2) for bvFTD, and 20.1 (SD = 4.7) for AD. Using a cutoff of 25 points, sensitivity of the IFS was 96.2%, and specificity 91.5% in differentiating controls from patients with dementia. The IFS correlated significantly with the CDR and executive tasks. The IFS total discriminated controls from demented patients, and bvFTD from AD. IFS is a brief, sensitive, and specific tool for the detection of executive dysfunction associated with neurodegenerative diseases. The IFS may be helpful in the differential diagnosis of FTD and AD.
A large proportion of human social neuroscience research has focused on the issue of decision-making. Impaired decision-making is a symptomatic feature of a number of neurodegenerative diseases, but the nature of these decision-making deficits depends on the particular disease. Thus, examining the qualitative differences in decision-making impairments associated with different neurodegenerative diseases could provide valuable information regarding the underlying neural basis of decision-making. Nevertheless, few comparative reports of decision-making across patient groups exist. In this Review, we examine the neuroanatomical substrates of decision-making in relation to the neuropathological changes that occur in Alzheimer disease, frontotemporal dementia, Parkinson disease and Huntington disease. We then examine the main findings from studies of decision-making in these neurodegenerative diseases. Finally, we suggest a number of recommendations that future studies could adopt to aid our understanding of decision-making cognition.
The authors note that on page 14900, right column, first paragraph, lines 1-5, the following statement appeared incorrectly: "In the group with frontal lesions (n = 44), only MD lesion volume was retained as a significant predictor (r = −0.40; P = 0.004) (Fig. 3A). The correlation between behavioral deficit and MD lesion volume also remained significant if non-MD lesion volume was first partialled out (r = −0.27; P = 0.037)." The statement should instead appear as: "In the group with frontal lesions (n = 44), MD lesion volume was significantly predictive of behavioral deficit (r = −0.35; P = 0.009) (Fig. 3A). However, the correlation was no longer significant if non-MD lesion volume was first partialled out (r = −0.19; P = 0.106). Accordingly, MD lesion volume was not retained as a significant predictor in the multiple regression." "MD" refers to the multiple demand regions (1). This error does not affect the conclusions of the article.
Loss of empathy is an early central symptom and diagnostic criterion of the behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD). Although changes in empathy are evident and strongly affect the social functioning of bvFTD patients, few studies have directly investigated this issue by means of experimental paradigms. The current study assessed multiple components of empathy (affective, cognitive and moral) in bvFTD patients. We also explored whether the loss of empathy constitutes a primary deficit of bvFTD or whether it is explained by impairments in executive functions (EF) or other social cognition domains. Thirty-seven bvFTD patients with early/mild stages of the disease and 30 healthy control participants were assessed with a task that involves the perception of intentional and accidental harm. Participants were also evaluated on emotion recognition, theory of mind (ToM), social norms knowledge and several EF domains. BvFTD patients presented deficits in affective, cognitive and moral aspects of empathy. However, empathic concern was the only aspect primarily affected in bvFTD that was neither related nor explained by deficits in EF or other social cognition domains. Deficits in the cognitive and moral aspects of empathy seem to depend on EF, emotion recognition and ToM. Our findings highlight the importance of using tasks depicting real-life social scenarios because of their greater sensitivity in the assessment of bvFTD. Moreover, our results contribute to the understanding of primary and intrinsic empathy deficits of bvFTD and have important theoretical and clinical implications.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.