↓ Skip to main content

Mistakes, Too Few to Mention? Impaired Self-conscious Emotional Processing of Errors in the Behavioral Variant of Frontotemporal Dementia

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Readers on

mendeley
57 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
Mistakes, Too Few to Mention? Impaired Self-conscious Emotional Processing of Errors in the Behavioral Variant of Frontotemporal Dementia
Published in
Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, October 2017
DOI 10.3389/fnbeh.2017.00189
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carole S. Scherling, Jessica Zakrzewski, Samir Datta, Robert W. Levenson, Arthur P. Shimamura, Virginia E. Sturm, Bruce L. Miller, Howard J. Rosen

Abstract

Anosognosia, or lack of awareness of one's deficits, is a core feature of the behavioral variant of frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD). We hypothesized that this deficit has its origins in failed emotional processing of errors. We studied autonomic and facial emotional reactivity to errors in patients with bvFTD (n = 17), Alzheimer's disease (AD, n = 20), and healthy controls (HC, n = 35) during performance of a timed two-alternative-choice button press task. Performance-related behavioral responses to errors were quantified using rates of error correction and post-error slowing of reaction times. Facial emotional responses were measured by monitoring facial reactivity via video and subsequently coding the type, duration and intensity of all emotional reactions. Skin conductance response (SCR) was measured via noninvasive sensors. SCR and total score for each facial emotion expression were quantified for each trial. Facial emotions were grouped into self-conscious (amusement, embarrassment) and negative (fear, sadness, anger, disgust, contempt) emotions. HCs corrected 99.4% of their errors. BvFTD patients corrected 94% (not statistically different compared with HC) and AD corrected 74.8% of their errors (p < 0.05 compared with HC and bvFTD). All groups showed similar post-error slowing. Errors in HCs were associated with greater facial reactivity and SCRs compared with non-error trials, including both negative and self-conscious emotions. BvFTD patients failed to produce self-conscious emotions or an increase in SCR for errors, although they did produce negative emotional responses to a similar degree as HCs. AD showed no deficit in facial reactivity to errors. Although, SCR was generally reduced in AD during error trials, they showed a preserved increase in SCR for errors relative to correct trials. These results demonstrate a specific deficit in emotional responses to errors in bvFTD, encompassing both physiological response and a specific deficit in self-conscious emotions, despite intact awareness and correction of errors. The findings provide a potential mechanism for anosognosia and possibly other behavioral abnormalities in bvFTD and highlight the importance of studying multiple channels of reactivity to errors, including performance related responses and emotional responses, in order to understand how impaired error processing could influence behavior.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 57 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 21%
Student > Master 8 14%
Researcher 8 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 5%
Other 3 5%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 17 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 10 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Computer Science 2 4%
Other 10 18%
Unknown 23 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 15 December 2017.
All research outputs
#13,570,909
of 23,003,906 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
#1,634
of 3,200 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#165,116
of 326,537 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
#47
of 74 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,003,906 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,200 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.3. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 326,537 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 74 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.