↓ Skip to main content

Enhanced Positive Emotional Reactivity Undermines Empathy in Behavioral Variant Frontotemporal Dementia

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neurology, June 2018
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 (82nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
79 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
Enhanced Positive Emotional Reactivity Undermines Empathy in Behavioral Variant Frontotemporal Dementia
Published in
Frontiers in Neurology, June 2018
DOI 10.3389/fneur.2018.00402
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alice Y. Hua, Isabel J. Sible, David C. Perry, Katherine P. Rankin, Joel H. Kramer, Bruce L. Miller, Howard J. Rosen, Virginia E. Sturm

Abstract

Behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD) is a neurodegenerative disease characterized by profound changes in emotions and empathy. Although most patients with bvFTD become less sensitive to negative emotional cues, some patients become more sensitive to positive emotional stimuli. We investigated whether dysregulated positive emotions in bvFTD undermine empathy by making it difficult for patients to share (emotional empathy), recognize (cognitive empathy), and respond (real-world empathy) to emotions in others. Fifty-one participants (26 patients with bvFTD and 25 healthy controls) viewed photographs of neutral, positive, negative, and self-conscious emotional faces and then identified the emotions displayed in the photographs. We used facial electromyography to measure automatic, sub-visible activity in two facial muscles during the task: Zygomaticus major (ZM), which is active during positive emotional reactions (i.e., smiling), and Corrugator supercilii (CS), which is active during negative emotional reactions (i.e., frowning). Participants rated their baseline positive and negative emotional experience before the task, and informants rated participants' real-world empathic behavior on the Interpersonal Reactivity Index. The majority of participants also underwent structural magnetic resonance imaging. A mixed effects model found a significant diagnosis X trial interaction: patients with bvFTD showed greater ZM reactivity to neutral, negative (disgust and surprise), self-conscious (proud), and positive (happy) faces than healthy controls. There was no main effect of diagnosis or diagnosis X trial interaction on CS reactivity. Compared to healthy controls, patients with bvFTD had impaired emotion recognition. Multiple regression analyses revealed that greater ZM reactivity predicted worse negative emotion recognition and worse real-world empathy. At baseline, positive emotional experience was higher in bvFTD than healthy controls and also predicted worse negative emotion recognition. Voxel-based morphometry analyses found that smaller volume in the thalamus, midcingulate cortex, posterior insula, anterior temporal pole, amygdala, precentral gyrus, and inferior frontal gyrus-structures that support emotion generation, interoception, and emotion regulation-was associated with greater ZM reactivity in bvFTD. These findings suggest that dysregulated positive emotional reactivity may relate to reduced empathy in bvFTD by making patients less likely to tune their reactions to the social context and to share, recognize, and respond to others' feelings and needs.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 79 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 16%
Student > Bachelor 11 14%
Student > Master 8 10%
Other 6 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 8%
Other 13 16%
Unknown 22 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 21 27%
Neuroscience 9 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Other 8 10%
Unknown 27 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 07 September 2018.
All research outputs
#2,693,489
of 23,085,832 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurology
#1,520
of 11,993 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#57,485
of 329,875 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurology
#30
of 311 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,085,832 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,993 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 329,875 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 311 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.