MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4353049716 · doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2023.02.009

Thinking versus feeling: How interoception and cognition influence emotion recognition in behavioural-variant frontotemporal dementia, Alzheimer's disease, and Parkinson's disease

2023· article· en· W4353049716 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCortex · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
Canadian institutionsOccupational Cancer Research CentreUniversity of Toronto
FundersFondo para la Investigación Científica y TecnológicaNational Institute on AgingFondo de Financiamiento de Centros de Investigación en Áreas PrioritariasNational Health and Medical Research CouncilAgencia Nacional de Investigación y DesarrolloUniversity of SydneyConsejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y TécnicasNational Institutes of HealthMedical Research CouncilAlzheimer's Association
KeywordsPsychologyInteroceptionFrontotemporal dementiaCognitionEmotion perceptionOrbitofrontal cortexInsulaDementiaNeuropsychologyCognitive psychologyAudiologyPerceptionDiseaseNeuroscienceMedicinePrefrontal cortex

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Disease-specific mechanisms underlying emotion recognition difficulties in behavioural-variant frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD), Alzheimer's disease (AD), and Parkinson's disease (PD) are unknown. Interoceptive accuracy, accurately detecting internal cues (e.g., one's heart beating), and cognitive abilities are candidate mechanisms underlying emotion recognition. One hundred and sixty-eight participants (52 bvFTD; 41 AD; 24 PD; 51 controls) were recruited. Emotion recognition was measured via the Facial Affect Selection Task or the Mini-Social and Emotional Assessment Emotion Recognition Task. Interoception was assessed with a heartbeat detection task. Participants pressed a button each time they: 1) felt their heartbeat (Interoception); or 2) heard a recorded heartbeat (Exteroception-control). Cognition was measured via the Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination-III or the Montreal Cognitive Assessment. Voxel-based morphometry analyses identified neural correlates associated with emotion recognition and interoceptive accuracy. All patient groups showed worse emotion recognition and cognition than controls (all P's ≤ .008). Only the bvFTD showed worse interoceptive accuracy than controls (P < .001). Regression analyses revealed that in bvFTD worse interoceptive accuracy predicted worse emotion recognition (P = .008). Whereas worse cognition predicted worse emotion recognition overall (P < .001). Neuroimaging analyses revealed that the insula, orbitofrontal cortex, and amygdala were involved in emotion recognition and interoceptive accuracy in bvFTD. Here, we provide evidence for disease-specific mechanisms for emotion recognition difficulties. In bvFTD, emotion recognition impairment is driven by inaccurate perception of the internal milieu. Whereas, in AD and PD, cognitive impairment likely underlies emotion recognition deficits. The current study furthers our theoretical understanding of emotion and highlights the need for targeted interventions.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.621

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.236 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it