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.

43/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. Caregiving

Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment

Introduction Social cognition is crucial for human interaction, and is markedly impaired in the frontal variant of frontotemporal dementia (fvFTD). The relationship of various aspects of social functioning, however, remains controversial in this group. Methods Patients with fvFTD (n = 18), and matched controls (n = 13), were tested using tasks designed to assess their Theory of Mind (ToM), moral reasoning, emotion recognition and executive function. Caregivers documented changes in empathy compared to premorbid functioning. Results We found marked impairments in the abilities of fvFTD patients, relative to controls, in ability to mentalise (ToM), which was evident on a cartoon test, but not on a story-based ToM task. Knowledge of social rules was intact, but moral reasoning was defective, and was due, in part, to an inability to rate the seriousness of moral and conventional transgressions appropriately. Executive function was impaired in this group, and compromised aspects of moral reasoning, but ToM performance was independent of this. Emotion recognition was globally impaired in fvFTD, but was particularly so for anger and disgust which may partly explain the difficulty these patients have with identifying social violations. Empathy, as rated by carers, was also shown to be abnormal. Conclusion It appears that social reasoning is disrupted in a number of ways in fvFTD, and the findings provide a basis for the understanding and further study of abnormal behaviour in this disease. The results are discussed in light of neuroimaging findings in studies of social cognition and the locus of pathology in fvFTD.

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

APA 7th

Lough, S., Kipps, C. M., Treise, C., Watson, P., Blair, JR., & Hodges, JR. (2006). Social reasoning, emotion and empathy in frontotemporal dementia. Neuropsychologia. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2005.08.009

Vancouver

Lough S, Kipps CM, Treise C, Watson P, Blair JR, Hodges JR. Social reasoning, emotion and empathy in frontotemporal dementia. Neuropsychologia. 2006. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2005.08.009. PMID: 16198378.

BibTeX

@article{lough2006-16198378,
  author  = {Lough, S. and Kipps, C. M. and Treise, C. and Watson, P. and Blair, JR. and Hodges, JR.},
  title   = {{Social reasoning, emotion and empathy in frontotemporal dementia}},
  journal = {Neuropsychologia},
  year    = {2006},
  doi     = {10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2005.08.009},
  pmid    = {16198378},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2005.08.009}
}

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.

Key findings

Caregivers documented changes in empathy compared to premorbid functioning.
Results We found marked impairments in the abilities of fvFTD patients, relative to controls, in ability to mentalise (ToM), which was evident on a cartoon test, but not on a story-based ToM task.
The results are discussed in light of neuroimaging findings in studies of social cognition and the locus of pathology in fvFTD.

New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Caregiving →

Study details

Participants18
Evidence strengthLow

How this study scored 43/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, effect reported and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, 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 25 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 43 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Neuropsychologia)
Journal's citation record	— / 4	No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design	0 / 12	No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Strength of evidence	1 / 5	Rated “low” in our summary
Peer-review validation	10 / 10	Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent	1 / 5	2006 — older than 20 years, still counted
Sample size	1 / 4	18 participants
Effect reported	0 / 3	No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Studied in people	3 / 3	Studied in people (participant count stated)
Randomised / blinded	0 / 2	No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
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	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 16198378)
Free to read	0 / 2	Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points	25 / 58	Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 25 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 43 out of 100.
Total	43 / 100	—

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.

Related studies in Caregiving

Also in Caregiving

69 studies in the library are filed under Caregiving with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Caregiving hub.

Similar studies

More on Caregiving

See all studies in Caregiving →