Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. Lewy body dementia

Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment

Face processing abilities are critical for social interaction, yet impairments are common across dementia syndromes and constitute a core diagnostic feature of some neurocognitive disorders. These abilities encompass multiple interrelated processes, including face perception,memory, and semantics. Until now, most existing individual dementia studies examined components of face processing in isolation, limiting an integrated understanding of how these deficits manifest. To address this gap, this systematic review examined domain- and syndrome-specific patterns of face processing impairment in dementia. Eligible studies were primary experimental studies published in English or French that assessed perceptual, memory, or semantic face- or person-processing in individuals with dementia compared with healthy controls. The search identified 99 eligible articles, encompassing 3,810 patients, 216 face-processing tasks, and 13 dementia syndromes, including Alzheimer’s disease (AD), semantic dementia (SD), behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD), and others. Semantic tasks were most frequently studied (49.5%), followed by perceptual (31.9%) and memory tasks (18.5%). Results revealed distinct syndrome-specific profiles. AD showed impairment spanning perceptual, memory, and semantic domains, but showed more severe memory impairment overall. SD and its variants showed largely preserved perceptual processing but pronounced semantic impairment, with right-temporal variant frontotemporal dementia (rtvFTD) showing greater difficulty with familiarity and semantic variant primary progressive aphasia (svPPA) showing greater difficulty with naming. BvFTD showed relatively preserved face processing. Findings for other syndromeswere limited by sparse literature. Overall, perceptual impairment tended to be accompanied by memory and semantic deficits, while semantic impairment could occur independently of perceptual dysfunction, consistent with a hierarchical, partly dissociable organization of face processing. These findings support integrating face processing assessments into clinical practice to refine differential diagnosis, track disease progression, and guide targeted, process-based interventions.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 16/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 2 of 10; Journal's citation record 0 of 4; Study design 12 of 12; Strength of evidence 5 of 5; Peer-review validation 4 of 10; How recent 5 of 5; Sample size 3 of 4; Effect reported 2 of 3; Studied in people 3 of 3; Randomised / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited left out, no data; Citations per year left out, no data; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here left out, no data; Still being cited left out, no data; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multi-centre collaboration left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 1 of 2; Free to read 0 of 2. 37 of the 62 points it could be judged on, which is 60 of 100. Raw total 60 of 100, shown as 16 because this is not a peer-reviewed research article.raw total 60 of 100capped at 16 — hatched points do not count

Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. It scored 60 on the same rubric, but non-peer-reviewed sources are capped at 16, so it shows as 16. We have no data on times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 37 of the 62 points we could judge it on, which is 60 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 2 / 10 Tier 4 — not a peer-reviewed journal (PsyArXiv)
Journal's citation record 0 / 4 Not a journal article, so the journal's record does not count
Study design 12 / 12 A systematic review of all the studies on the question
Strength of evidence 5 / 5 Rated “high” in our summary
Peer-review validation 4 / 10 Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. Hosted on a preprint server.
How recent 5 / 5 2026 — within 1 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 3 / 4 3,810 participants
Effect reported 2 / 3 Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test
Studied in people 3 / 3 Studied in people (participant count stated)
Randomised / blinded 0 / 2 A review of other studies — randomisation is not credited here
Times cited — / 7 No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score
Citations per year — / 5 No citation count or no year — left out of this score
Impact for its field and year — / 6 No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score
Cited by studies here — / 6 Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score
Still being cited — / 4 No yearly citation counts — left out of this score
Senior author's track record — / 4 Senior author's record not available — left out of this score
Institution's track record — / 3 No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score
Multi-centre collaboration — / 3 Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed 1 / 2 Not in PubMed, but has a DOI
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 37 / 62 Scored on 12 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 37 of the 62 points we could judge it on is 60 out of 100.
Total 60 / 100 Capped to 16 because this is not a peer-reviewed article.

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

APA 7th

Leclerc, M., Krohn, V., Beaudoin, M., Joubert, S., & Montembeault, M. (2026). Face Processing Impairments in Dementia Syndromes: A Systematic Review. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/9rqf7_v1

Vancouver

Leclerc M, Krohn V, Beaudoin M, Joubert S, Montembeault M. Face Processing Impairments in Dementia Syndromes: A Systematic Review. PsyArXiv. 2026. doi:10.31234/osf.io/9rqf7_v1.

BibTeX

@article{leclerc2026-1f4da695,
  author  = {Leclerc, M. and Krohn, V. and Beaudoin, M. and Joubert, S. and Montembeault, M.},
  title   = {{Face Processing Impairments in Dementia Syndromes: A Systematic Review}},
  journal = {PsyArXiv},
  year    = {2026},
  doi     = {10.31234/osf.io/9rqf7_v1},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/9rqf7_v1}
}

Related studies in Lewy body dementia

Similar studies

More on Lewy body dementia

See all studies in Lewy body dementia →