↓ Skip to main content

False Recognition in Behavioral Variant Frontotemporal Dementia and Alzheimer's Disease—Disinhibition or Amnesia?

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
85 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
False Recognition in Behavioral Variant Frontotemporal Dementia and Alzheimer's Disease—Disinhibition or Amnesia?
Published in
Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, July 2016
DOI 10.3389/fnagi.2016.00177
Pubmed ID
Authors

Emma C. Flanagan, Stephanie Wong, Aparna Dutt, Sicong Tu, Maxime Bertoux, Muireann Irish, Olivier Piguet, Sulakshana Rao, John R. Hodges, Amitabha Ghosh, Michael Hornberger

Abstract

Episodic memory recall processes in Alzheimer's disease (AD) and behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD) can be similarly impaired, whereas recognition performance is more variable. A potential reason for this variability could be false-positive errors made on recognition trials and whether these errors are due to amnesia per se or a general over-endorsement of recognition items regardless of memory. The current study addressed this issue by analysing recognition performance on the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (RAVLT) in 39 bvFTD, 77 AD and 61 control participants from two centers (India, Australia), as well as disinhibition assessed using the Hayling test. Whereas both AD and bvFTD patients were comparably impaired on delayed recall, bvFTD patients showed intact recognition performance in terms of the number of correct hits. However, both patient groups endorsed significantly more false-positives than controls, and bvFTD and AD patients scored equally poorly on a sensitivity index (correct hits-false-positives). Furthermore, measures of disinhibition were significantly associated with false positives in both groups, with a stronger relationship with false-positives in bvFTD. Voxel-based morphometry analyses revealed similar neural correlates of false positive endorsement across bvFTD and AD, with both patient groups showing involvement of prefrontal and Papez circuitry regions, such as medial temporal and thalamic regions, and a DTI analysis detected an emerging but non-significant trend between false positives and decreased fornix integrity in bvFTD only. These findings suggest that false-positive errors on recognition tests relate to similar mechanisms in bvFTD and AD, reflecting deficits in episodic memory processes and disinhibition. These findings highlight that current memory tests are not sufficient to accurately distinguish between bvFTD and AD patients.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 85 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 15%
Student > Master 13 15%
Researcher 12 14%
Student > Postgraduate 6 7%
Student > Bachelor 5 6%
Other 11 13%
Unknown 25 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 20 24%
Neuroscience 15 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 15%
Engineering 2 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 1%
Other 4 5%
Unknown 30 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 November 2016.
All research outputs
#2,784,076
of 22,881,154 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
#1,136
of 4,817 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,847
of 363,722 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
#13
of 86 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,881,154 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,817 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 363,722 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 86 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.