<p>Affective theory of mind in Parkinson’s disease: the effect of cognitive performance</p>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Among other non-motor symptoms, theory of mind (ToM), the ability to recognize, understand and infer others' mental states, beliefs, intents and wishes, has been shown to deteriorate during the course of Parkinson's disease (PD). It has been speculated that ToM impairments could be related to cognitive deficits in PD. However, the current state of literature suggests that there is heterogeneity regarding the involvement of cognitive functioning in the relationship of PD and ToM. The study aimed to measure affective ToM abilities and cognitive performance in a sample of PD patients, to explore the link between affective ToM abilities and cognitive status, and to examine the impact of PD on affective ToM through the mediator effect of cognitive performance. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Sixty-five patients diagnosed with idiopathic PD and 51 healthy controls matched for age, gender and educational level completed a visual affective ToM task (Reading the Mind in the Eyes - RMET), cognitive performance was evaluated with Montreal Cognitive Assessment, and psychiatric symptoms were measured with BPRS-E (Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale). RESULTS: Affective ToM abilities were preserved in early PD patients, declining as the disease progressed. Deficits in cognitive functioning predicted deficiencies in affective ToM. Although attention (AT), executive functions (EF) and visuospatial abilities (VSA) together mediated the relationship between PD and affective ToM, only VSA impairment had a specific negative impact on affective ToM. Moreover, 41% of the total effect of attention and executive functions on affective ToM was mediated by visuospatial skills. CONCLUSION: Cognitive performance may have an impact on the relationship between PD and affective ToM through the involvement of VSA. The influence of AT and EF in this relationship appears to be also exerted by PD patients' VSA.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".