Fear conditioning in frontotemporal lobar degeneration and Alzheimer's disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Emotional blunting and abnormal processing of rewards and punishments represent early features of frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD). Better understanding of the physiological underpinnings of these emotional changes can be facilitated by the use of classical psychology approaches. Fear conditioning (FC) is an extensively used paradigm for studying emotional processing that has rarely been applied to the study of dementia. We studied FC in controls (n = 25), Alzheimer's disease (n = 25) and FTLD (n = 25). A neutral stimulus (coloured square on a computer screen) was repeatedly paired with a 1 s burst of 100 db white noise. Change in skin conductance response to the neutral stimulus was used to measure conditioning. Physiological-anatomical correlations were examined using voxel-based morphometry (VBM). Both patient groups showed impaired acquisition of conditioned responses. However, the basis for this deficit appeared to differ between groups. In Alzheimer's disease, impaired FC occurred despite normal electrodermal responses to the aversive stimulus. In contrast, FTLD patients showed reduced skin conductance responses to the aversive stimulus, which contributed significantly to their FC deficit. VBM identified correlations with physiological reactivity in the amygdala, anterior cingulate cortex, orbitofrontal cortex and insula. These data indicate that Alzheimer's disease and FTLD both show abnormalities in emotional learning, but they suggest that in FTLD this is associated with a deficit in basic electrodermal response to aversive stimuli, consistent with the emotional blunting described with this disorder. Deficits in responses to aversive stimuli could contribute to both the behavioural and cognitive features of FTLD and Alzheimer's disease. Further study of FC in humans and animal models of dementia could provide a valuable window into these symptoms.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".