The impact of culture on neuropsychological performance: A global social cognition study across 12 countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Decades of researches aiming to unveil truths about human neuropsychology may have instead unveil facts appropriate to only a fraction of the world’s population: those living in western educated rich democratic nations (Muthukrishna et al., 2020 Psych Sci). So far, most studies were conducted as if education and cultural assumptions on which neuropsychology is based were universals and applied everywhere in the world. The importance given to sociological or cultural factors is thus still relatively ignored. With the growth of international clinical studies on dementia, we believe that documenting the potential inter‐cultural differences at stake in a common neuropsychological assessment is an essential topic. This study thus aimed to explore these potential variations in two classical tasks used in neuropsychology that are composing the mini‐SEA (Bertoux et al., 2012 JNNP), i.e. a reduced version of the well‐known Ekman faces (FER), where one has to recognize facial emotions, and a modified version of the Faux Pas test (mFP), where one has to detect and explain social faux. Method The data of 573 control participants were collected through the Social Cognition & FTLD Network, an international consortium investigating social cognitive changes in dementia covering 3 continents (18 research centres in 12 countries). Impact of demographic factors and the effect of countries on performance (mini‐SEA, FER, mFP) were explored through linear mixed‐effects models. Result Age, education and gender were found to significantly impact the performance of the mini‐SEA subtests. Significant and important variations across the countries were also retrieved, with England having the highest performance for all scores. When controlling for demographical factors, differences within countries explained between 14% (mFP) and 24% (FER) of the variance at the mini‐SEA. These variations were not explained by any economical or sociological metrics. Conclusion Important variations of performance were observed across the 12 countries of the consortium, showing how cultural differences may critically impact neuropsychological performance in international studies.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".