Measuring Empathy in People with Young-Onset Dementia: Validity of the Newly Developed Nummenmaa Emotion Experience Test (NEET) and the Revised Empathic Accuracy Task (EAT-R)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives. An important affected domain in various subtypes of young-onset dementia (YOD) is social cognition (SC), which is the ability to perceive, process and respond appropriately to social information. SC impairments can significantly impact social behaviour and interpersonal relationships. Therefore, it is imperative to accurately assess SC impairments in patients with YOD. Currently, valid and well-normed tests exist only for assessing emotion recognition. Therefore, two new tests were developed for measuring other aspects of SC: bodily emotion experience and empathy. The aim of the current study was to analyse the association of the two new tests with other SC measures (convergent validity) and a purely cognitive test (divergent validity). Methods. 62 healthy participants were included. The Nummenmaa Emotion Experience Test (NEET) measures bodily emotion experience, and the Revised Empathic Accuracy Task (EAT-R) measures cognitive and affective empathy. With parametric and non-parametric correlation analyses, associations with the Facial Expressions of Emotion: stimuli and test (FEEST), the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20), a ToM battery (including items of the Hinting Task, Faux-Pas, Cartoons and Story-based Empathy Task) and the Trail-Making Test B were studied. Results. There is no significant association between TMT and NEET (rs=-.149, p=.249) and EAT-R (rs=-.042, p=.749). There is a significant, but small, association between NEET and FEEST (rs=.277, p=.029) Furthermore, EAT-R total is significantly associated with ToM Cartoons (rs = .255, p=.046). The external orientation subscale of the TAS-20 is significantly associated with EAT-R total (r =-.284, p=.025) and EAT-R Affective (r=-.376, p=.003). EAT-R Cognitive is significantly associated with Hinting Task (rs=.274, p=.031), Faux-Pas (rs=.263, p=.039) and Story-based empathy task (rs=.265, p=.038). Conclusions. The NEET and EAT-R are not associated with a purely cognitive test, but are associated with (sub)tests of SC measuring similar or related aspects. These preliminary results on construct validity seem promising.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".