Abstract
Introduction More precise subtyping within dementia syndromes leads to better prediction of pathology, supporting individualized, disease-specific treatments. Notably, studies highlight that identification of the right-temporal or semantic behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia (sbvFTD) subtype relies in part on measuring emotion recognition abilities.
Methods To evaluate the effectiveness of current tools, we compared two dynamic video-based affect labeling tests—the Dynamic Affect Recognition Test (DART) and The Awareness of Social Inference Test-Emotion Evaluation Test (TASIT-EET)—against the static image-based Name Affect subtest of the Comprehensive Affect Testing System (CATS-NA) test. A total of 555 persons with dementia (PwD), in the early stages of neurodegenerative disease (Clinical Dementia Rating ≤ 1; Mini Mental State Examination ≥ 20), diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease syndrome (AD) (n=154), progressive supranuclear palsy syndrome (PSPS) (n=88), non-fluent variant primary progressive aphasia (nfvPPA) (n=77), semantic variant PPA (n=53), behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD) (n=124), semantic bvFTD (n=65), and 133 healthy older participants underwent emotion testing and structural MRI.
Results All emotion labeling tests differentiated PwD from healthy controls (DART, AUC=0.81; TASIT-EET, AUC=0.84; CATS-NA, AUC=0.72), and FTD with social cognition deficits (sbvFTD, bvFTD, and svPPA) from other PwDs (DART, AUC=0.64; TASIT-EET, AUC=0.66; CATS-NA, AUC=0.63). Dynamic tests outperformed CATS-NA in differentiating sbvFTD from bvFTD and svPPA (DART, AUC=0.79; TASIT-EET, AUC=0.74; CATS-NA, AUC=0.60), whereas DART outperformed TASIT-EET in differentiating sbvFTD from svPPA (DART, AUC=0.73; TASIT-EET, AUC=0.66). Multiple linear regression analysis showed that TASIT-EET performance was predicted by visual memory (Benson-delayed) and verbal semantic (BNT, Animal Fluency) functions (p<0.01) and CATS-NA performance was predicted by visuospatial (CATS-Face matching, Number location) (p<0.001) and executive functions (Modified Trail making speed) (p<0.05), while DART was predicted by only working memory functions (Digit span backward) (p<0.05). DART corresponded to the expected structural anatomy of emotion, including right predominant insula, anterior temporal, and orbitofrontal lobes. While both TASIT-EET and CATS-NA shared that pattern of brain anatomy, TASIT-EET correlated with more left temporal structures than DART, and CATS-NA associated with more dorsal structures than DART. Finally, all emotion labeling tests correlated with real-life empathy deficits measured by a standardized informant-based survey.
Conclusion Tasks showing dynamic audio-visual emotion displays showed better effectiveness for diagnostic differentiation of FTD syndromes than static image-based tasks, and the DART showed better clinical and anatomic precision than the TASIT-EET. Emotion identification deficits are a core feature of dementia syndromes like sbvFTD, but occur in the context of additional cognitive deficits. Therefore, careful selection of tests that reflect the key underlying neural circuits related to emotion, and which minimize demand from other cognitive domains, will result in more accurate diagnoses.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
HU is supported by an Alzheimer's Association Grant (AACSF-22-849085); additional funding was provided by The National Institutes of Health (R01AG029577/RF1AG029577, P01AG019724, P50AG023501, P30 AG062422) and the Larry L. Hillblom Foundation (2014-A-004-NET).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This research was subject to approval by the University of California San Francisco (UCSF) Committee for Human Resources Independent Review Board. In all cases, informed consent was gained from the participant or the primary caregiver.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
