Social cognition in hyperkinetic movement disorders: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Numerous lines of research indicate that our social brain involves a network of cortical and subcortical brain regions that are responsible for sensing and controlling body movements. However, it remains unclear whether movement disorders have a systematic impact on social cognition. To address this question, we conducted a systematic review examining the influence of hyperkinetic movement disorders (including Huntington disease, Tourette syndrome, dystonia, and essential tremor) on social cognition. Following the PRISMA guidelines and registering the protocol in the PROSPERO database (CRD42022327459), we analyzed 50 published studies focusing on theory of mind (ToM), social perception, and empathy. The results from these studies provide evidence of impairments in ToM and social perception in all hyperkinetic movement disorders, particularly during the recognition of negative emotions. Additionally, individuals with Huntington's Disease and Tourette syndrome exhibit empathy disorders. These findings support the functional role of subcortical structures (such as the basal ganglia and cerebellum), which are primarily responsible for movement disorders, in deficits related to social cognition.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".