Right Anterior Temporal Degeneration, Emotions, and Loss of Nonverbal Semantics: The Emotional Semantic Variant Frontotemporal Dementia

Participants

We identified patients who met bvFTD and/or svPPA criteria (see below) and had research visits between 1998 and 2019 (n = 682) at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) Memory and Aging Center (MAC). As symptoms were often mild at early research visits, scores on the Clinical Dementia Rating scale (CDR) were not used when determining study inclusion.⁵⁴ Patients who did not have a brain MRI within one year of the first research evaluation were excluded (n = 204). From the remaining 478 cases, we used structural neuroimaging measures to identify individuals with predominant rATL atrophy and relative preservation of the frontal lobes (see details below) (n = 46). We also included three other groups for comparison: a group of individuals with lATL-predominant atrophy and relative preservation of the frontal lobes (n = 75), a group of individuals with frontal-predominant atrophy and relative preservation of the rATL (n = 79), and a group of healthy older controls from the MAC Hillblom Healthy Aging Network (n = 59). We used strict clinical and anatomical inclusion criteria to contrast the rATL patients with these three groups and to clarify the distinct cognitive-behavioral phenotype of the rATL-predominant syndrome. Patients or caregivers provided informed consent following procedures aligned with the Declaration of Helsinki, and the study was approved by the UCSF Committee for Human Research.

Diagnostic criteria

Two raters, a behavioral neurologist (KY) and a neuropsychologist (MM), reviewed all available medical data for the rATL-predominant patients to determine whether they met the following diagnostic criteria: 1) Neary-FTD,⁶ 2) Neary-Semantic,⁶ 3) bvFTD,⁵⁰ and 4) svPPA.⁴⁹ We also noted whether patients had semantic variant features (i.e., impaired confrontation naming and single-word comprehension) regardless of meeting PPA general criteria (i.e., aphasia is the most prominent deficit in early disease).⁴⁹ This allowed us to describe verbal semantic deficits in patients who had predominantly behavioral presentations. The two raters determined whether each of these criteria was met at three different time points: 1) within the first three years of disease onset, 2) at the first MAC research evaluation, and 3) in the years subsequent to the first MAC evaluation.

Detailed symptom taxonomy and chronology

All research participants were evaluated by a behavioral neurologist, a neuropsychologist, a speech and language pathologist, and a nurse. A clinical history was obtained from each patient, with corroboration from the caregiver/informant, and began by identifying the nature and onset of the first symptoms. This was followed by a chronological history of how symptoms evolved, and then a detailed inventoried review of the domains of memory, language, executive function, visuospatial abilities, behavior, sleep, sensory processing, and motor function. Patients did not need to present for evaluation at the same stage of the disease in order for the retrospective interview to fully capture the chronology of symptoms.

We documented each patient’s first five symptoms, rather than all symptoms ever noted, because we expected many of the canonical bvFTD symptoms (disinhibition, apathy, loss of empathy, compulsions, hyperorality, and executive deficits) and PPA symptoms (language and semantic impairment) would emerge for most people in the disease’s later stages. In an effort to refine our categorization of the behavioral and emotional symptoms, we catalogued symptoms according to the following taxonomy:

1. Loss of empathy: Difficulty recognizing, understanding, or responding to others’ emotions and needs; selfishness; emotional distance from others; reduced or inappropriate emotional expressivity, diminished social interest, interrelatedness, or personal warmth.

2. Words and object semantic loss: Loss of knowledge about words, facts, concepts, animate or inanimate objects, places, or landmarks. Patients may demonstrate impaired naming, diminished recall, poor identification, or reduced feelings of familiarity for these domains.

3. Person-specific semantic knowledge loss: Loss of knowledge about known faces, proper names, and people (including biographical information about famous people, close friends, and/or family members). Patients may demonstrate impaired naming, diminished recall, poor recognition, or reduced feelings of familiarity for these domains.

4. Complex compulsions and rigid thought process: Adhering to fixed schedules or roles, preoccupation with dogmas (e.g., hyper-religiosity) or health (hypochondriasis), restricted preference for certain colors, clothing, or diet, spending hours playing word games and puzzles.

5. Simple repetitive behaviors, hoarding, or obsessions: repetitive motor (e.g., clicking, tapping, pacing) or verbal stereotypies, hoarding, or preoccupation with objects or people.

6. Apathy/inertia: Cognitive (reduced planning and voluntary action), behavioral (reduced self-initiated thoughts and behaviors), and affective (reduced social, emotional, behavioral interest) forms of apathy.⁵⁵

7. Disinhibition: Impulsivity or socially inappropriate behavior, loss of manners or decorum.

8. Lack of judgment/dysexecutive: Rash or careless actions, judgment mistakes that are out of character. Of note, in the current bvFTD criteria,⁴⁹ lack of judgment is considered as a part of disinhibition, but for this study we separated these two symptoms as they may be subserved by different neuroanatomical systems.⁵⁶

9. Episodic memory loss: Difficulty remembering recent events and autobiographical information.

10. Hyperorality or dietary changes: Altered food preferences, binge eating, increased consumption of alcohol or cigarettes, oral exploration, or consumption of inedible objects.

11. Motor neuron disease signs: Bulbar and limb signs of motor neuron disease.

12. Other symptoms: Visuospatial difficulties, declined hygiene, loss of sexual desire, dietary changes (increased or decreased eating), weight gain, weight loss, hypersomnia, and insomnia. These symptoms are either common in other neurodegenerative illnesses or not specific for a single neurodegenerative disease.

Functional, cognitive, and behavioral assessments

Patients underwent a comprehensive multidisciplinary assessment that included functional, neuropsychological, and socioemotional measures, Table 1 and Table 2, as previously described.^11,57 A description of the cognitive battery and further details about patients’ performance are presented in the Supplementary material. Verbal semantic knowledge was evaluated with the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT; patients were asked to choose the picture that best describes a word),⁵⁸ the abbreviated 15-item Boston Naming Test (BNT; patients were asked to name different drawings),⁵⁹ and semantic verbal fluency (patients generated as many animals as possible in 60 seconds). Nonverbal semantic knowledge was tested with the picture version of the Pyramids and Palm Trees (PPT-P; patients matched semantically associated pictures).⁶⁰

We assessed multiple domains of socioemotional functioning with a battery of task-based measures. Visual face perception was evaluated with the identity-matching subtest of the Comprehensive Affect Testing System (CATS), in which patients determined whether pairs of neutral faces were from the same person or different people.⁶¹ The ability to label emotional facial expressions with words was tested with the CATS emotion identification task, in which patients chose the emotion term that matched the facial expression depicted in a photograph from a list of multiple choice options.⁶² On the abbreviated version of the Emotion Evaluation Test (EET) from The Awareness of Social Inference Test (TASIT), patients identified the target emotion from a list of multiple choice options that were displayed by actors in short video clips. On the TASIT Social Inference–Minimal Test (SIM), patients were asked to detect sarcasm of actors in videos through interpretation of social cues including prosody, facial expression, and gesture. Theory of mind (ToM)—the ability to infer the thoughts, emotions, and intentions of others—was tested in cognitive (i.e., the ability to identify first and second order object knowledge of actors in videos) and emotional modalities (i.e., the ability to identify first and second order emotion knowledge of actors in videos) using the UCSF theory of mind Test.⁶³ Person-specific semantic knowledge was evaluated using the UCSF Famous Faces Naming test (a free response task in which patients named photographs of famous people’s faces), Semantic Famous Face Association test (patients matched famous faces based on their professions), Semantic Famous Name Association test (patients matched written names of famous people based on their professions), and Semantic Famous Face Recognition test (patients chose the famous face among four faces)^11,64 Further socioemotional testing details are found in the Supplementary material.

Informant-based measures were also obtained to assess patients’ socioemotional behavior in everyday life. Informants rated patients’ current cognitive empathy (i.e., perspective taking) and emotional empathy (i.e., empathic concern) using the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI).⁶⁵ Sensitivity and responsiveness to others’ subtle emotional expressions were rated by informants using the Revised Self-Monitoring Scale (RSMS).⁶⁶ Interpersonal coldness, warmth, and dominance, areas of personality known to be affected in FTD, were evaluated with informant ratings on the Interpersonal Adjective Scales (IAS).⁶⁷ Behavioral inhibition (i.e., behaviors associated with response avoidance and sensitivity to threat) and behavioral activation (i.e., behaviors associated with approach motivation including reward responsiveness, drive, and fun-seeking) systems were evaluated with informant ratings on the Behavioral Inhibition System/Behavioral Activation System (BIS/BAS) questionnaire.⁶⁸

Structural neuroimaging analyses

We processed structural T1-weighted images, as previously described.^69,70 W-score maps (W-maps) were generated by comparing each patient’s gray matter maps to 534 neurologically healthy older controls from the MAC Hillblom Healthy Aging Network (age range 44-99 years, M±SD: 68·7±9·1; 220 male/302 female), adjusted for age, sex, total intracranial volume, and magnet field strength. Mean W-score values were extracted for each region of interest (ROI) in the probabilistic Desikan atlas. W-scores have a mean value of 0 and a standard deviation (SD) of 1; values of +1.65 and -1.65 correspond to the 95th and 5th percentiles and indicate regions with larger and smaller gray matter volume compared to the normative sample, respectively.

Patients were included in the rATL-predominant degeneration group if their lowest three W-scores were in right temporal regions, and they had relative preservations of the frontal lobes based on an atrophy index described as follows. For each patient with rATL maximum atrophy, we calculated the mean W-score of all frontal lobe ROIs and the mean W-score of all right temporal ROIs and computed a proportion with the following index: right temporal index = mean whole frontal w-score/mean right temporal w-score. The rATL-predominant degeneration patients who had an index < 0.50 were included in this study (n = 46) (Fig. 2 and Supplementary Table 1). A similar approach was used to select the comparison groups. Patients were included in the frontal-predominant group if their lowest three W-scores were in the frontal regions, and they had relative preservation of the right temporal regions based on an atrophy index (mean frontal W-map score / mean right temporal W-map score > 0.50). Patients were included in the lATL-predominant group if their lowest three W-map scores were in the left temporal regions, and they had relative preservation of the frontal lobes based on atrophy index (mean frontal W-map score / mean left temporal W-map score < 0.50). We implemented this index for the lATL instead of a right / left temporal laterality index in order to match the rATL and lATL patients based on their degree of accompanying frontal involvement.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1: Patient selection.

We searched the University of California, San Francisco Memory and Aging Center database. The first inclusion criteria was the clinical diagnosis, we included all participants who received a clinical diagnosis of behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia or semantic variant primary progressive aphasia. We then excluded all patients who did not have a brain MRI within one year of the first research evaluation. Next, we included participants who had peak atrophy in either the right temporal lobe, frontal lobe, or left temporal lobe on a brain MRI W-score map and showed predominant atrophy in their respective lobe based on an atrophy index. bvFTD = behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia spectrum disorders; svPPA = semantic variant primary progressive aphasia, posterior = parietal or occipital lobes.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2: Neuroimaging in right temporal-, left temporal-, and frontal-predominant neurodegeneration.

Lateral and mesial views. Predominant right temporal, left temporal, or frontal atrophy was used as part of the inclusion criteria based on a data-driven neuroimaging approach. The right temporal predominant group exhibited maximum atrophy in the right temporal lobe more than the left anterior temporal lobe with involvement of the right more than left insula, right caudate, and right more than left subgenual anterior cingulate cortex. Notably there is sparing of the frontal, parietal, and occipital lobes. The left temporal predominant group shows maximum atrophy in the left temporal lobe more than the right anterior temporal lobe with involvement of the left more than right insula, left caudate, and left subgenual anterior cingulate cortex. Further, there is sparing of the frontal, parietal, and occipital lobes. The frontal group shows bilateral lateral and mesial frontal and left temporal volume loss but relative sparing of the right temporal lobe.

Patients were excluded if they did not meet either the predominant atrophy or the atrophy index requirements. Patients were excluded if their lowest W-scores were not in the rATL, frontal lobe, or lATL (n = 164; four cerebellar, 65 mixed (i.e., lowest three W-scores were in different lobes), 62 subcortical, and 33 posterior (i.e., parietal or occipital lobes)), or if their greatest atrophy was in the rATL, lATL, or frontal lobes but did not meet the atrophy index inclusion threshold (total n = 114; 41 with maximum atrophy in rATL but frontal / right temporal > 0.5, 29 with maximum atrophy in the frontal lobe but frontal / right temporal < 0.5, and 44 with maximum atrophy in the lATL but frontal / left temporal > 0.5).

Recognizing that each of the groups included in this study did not show atrophy merely in one isolated brain region (for instance, patients typically have bilateral ATL volume loss by the time they present for imaging evaluation), we qualify our descriptions by using the term “predominant” to refer to the patient group with maximum atrophy in the one region that is out of proportion to the other regions. Thus, we acknowledge that the brain atrophy pattern of our “rATL-predominant” group also includes frontal and left temporal regions to varying degrees, but these patients unequivocally present with maximum atrophy in the rATL. Similarly, the “lATL-predominant” refers to the patient group with maximum atrophy in the lATL that is out of proportion to the frontal and rATL atrophy. The term “frontal-predominant’’, likewise, is used to refer to the patient group with maximum atrophy in the frontal lobes that is out of proportion to the ATL atrophy. The atrophy of each group as shown in Figure 2 extends beyond the regions of maximum atrophy and as such symptoms could be due to atrophy in the other regions involved or multiple parts of the connected networks”

Genetic and neuropathological data

Participants were screened for the following genetic mutations: PGRN, MAPT, TARDBP, C9orf72, APP, PSEN1, PSEN2, FUS, and APOE. In the patients who underwent autopsy, brains were processed and analyzed according to the UCSF Neurodegenerative Disease Brain Bank protocol.⁷¹ In short, eight micro-thick formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue sections from 23 tissue blocks were cut to represent 27 regions of interest. All blocks underwent routine hematoxylin and eosin staining, and subsets underwent immunohistochemistry for hyperphosphorylated tau, amyloid-β, TDP-43, alpha-synuclein, and 3R-tau antibodies. Neuropathological diagnoses were based on consensus criteria.^72–74

Statistical analysis

Tests of normality for all continuous data were conducted with the Shapiro-Wilk test. Homogeneity of variance was tested by Levene’s test. Statistical differences in the frequency of categorical variables across groups such as clinical symptoms and APOE genotype were performed with the Chi-Square test. Means of demographic measures (Table 1) were compared across groups with the ANOVA test. Means of functional, neuropsychological, language, and socioemotional measures (Tables 1 and Table 2) were compared with the ANCOVA test correcting for age, sex, and disease severity as measured by the Mini-Mental State Exam (MMSE). Because of the unequal sample sizes and unequal group variances, pairwise post hoc comparisons were done with estimated marginal means and Bonferroni-Sidak adjusted probabilities to correct for multiple comparisons, with p < 0.05 set as the threshold for statistical significance. Data analysis was performed with SPSS (version 27, SPSS/IBM, Chicago, IL). Table 1 and Table 2 show estimated marginal means, standard errors, and statistical significance after correcting for age, sex, and disease severity as measured by MMSE. When using ANCOVA and estimated marginal means for post hoc between groups analysis, the individual datapoints cannot be graphically plotted, for visualization purposes we show in Figure 4 the uncorrected datapoints, means, and standard deviations for key socioemotional measures.

Data availability

The data for this study is available upon request. The sensitive nature of patients’ data and the institutional ethics protocols in place at the time these patients gave informed consent do not permit open data sharing. The clinical and neuroimaging data used in the current paper are available from the senior author (MLGT), upon formal request indicating name and affiliation of the researcher as well as a brief description of the use that will be done of the data. All requests will undergo UCSF-regulated procedure thus requiring submission of a Material Transfer Agreement (MTA). No commercial use would be approved.

Demographic features

Table 1 shows the demographic information. Although the sex distribution was not different between healthy control and the patient groups, the healthy controls were older than all of the patient groups. Patients in all cohorts were highly educated with an average over 15.5 years of education. In the rATL-predominant group, 91% were White and 9% were Asians, a proportion that was not different from other groups. In the rATL cohort (n = 46), the average age of onset (60.2 years and sd = 6.8 years). In the rATL-predominant group, 52% of the patients were men and 15% were non-right-handed. On average, rATL-predominant patients were in the mild to moderate range of disease severity; at the first research visit, the average MMSE score (25.7/30; sd = 5.2) was higher than the other disease groups. The CDR for the rATL group (average score 0.9/3; sd = 0.5) was lower than the lATL-predominant group but not different from the frontal-predominant group. We used age, sex, and MMSE as confounds in all later analyses.

Diagnostic criteria and clinical symptom chronology

During the first three years of the illness, only a minority of patients in the rATL-predominant group met diagnostic criteria for Neary-FTD (13%), Neary-semantic dementia (9%), bvFTD (27%), or svPPA (13%). Approximately one third of the group had verbal svPPA features (i.e., impaired confrontational naming and object knowledge) but did not meet the general criteria for PPA (36%) because aphasia was not the initial and predominant symptom. At the time of the first research evaluation at the MAC (average 5.3 years after disease onset), these percentages were higher: Neary-FTD (52%), Neary-semantic dementia (11%), bvFTD (83%), svPPA (16%), and semantic variant features (78%) (Supplemental Table 2).

The clinical histories revealed that, when combining all symptoms that emerged during the first three years of the illness, the most common symptoms for patients with rATL-predominant degeneration were loss of empathy (27%), loss of person-specific semantic knowledge (23%), complex compulsions and rigid thought process (18%), and loss of verbal semantic knowledge (13%) (Fig. 3). The sequence of the first two symptoms in rATL-predominant patients is shown in Supplemental table 3.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3: Chronology of symptoms.

Left upper corner shows the symptom legend. Right upper corner shows symptoms chronology in the right temporal-predominant group; the most common early symptoms in this group are loss of empathy, loss of person-specific knowledge, and rigid thought process and complex compulsion. The left lower corner shows symptom chronology in the frontal-predominant group; the most common early symptoms in this group are lack of judgment/dysexecutive symptoms, apathy, and disinhibition. The right lower corner shows symptom chronology in the left temporal-predominant group; the most common early symptoms in this group are verbal semantic loss, loss of person-specific knowledge, and rigid thought process and complex compulsion.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 4: Socioemotional and Neuropsychological characteristics.

The figure shows the results of the main socioemotional tests that can help distinguish right temporal-from frontal-predominant patients. More details can be found in Table 2. Although all disease groups had difficulties with famous faces naming, only right temporal, and a lesser degree left temporal-predominant patients, had difficulties on Famous Face Familiarity and Semantic Association. Although all disease groups showed impaired simple and complex social cues recognition on the TASIT-EET and TASIT-Sarcasm, only the frontal predominant group showed impairment on the control cognitive task, TASIT-Sincere. Right temporal-predominant patients showed significantly worse performance on the complex social cue, TASIT-Sarcasm, compared to the frontal predominant group. The right temporal-predominant group showed increased coldness compared to the frontal predominant group. The right and left temporal-predominant groups had difficulty with the emotional theory of mind but not with the cognitive theory of mind task. In contrast to the frontal-predominant group which demonstrated impairment in both cognitive and emotional theory of mind.

Caregiver-reported examples of loss of empathy included decline in the ability to understand and respond to others’ emotions and needs (e.g., not consoling a family member who lost a parent or was diagnosed with a terminal illness, making tactless comments in a funeral, asking a crying child why their eyes were watering, and becoming more self-centered). In our experience, often, loss of empathy toward others can be interpreted by caregivers as selfishness. Examples of loss of person-specific semantic knowledge included not recognizing familiar people by the face or voice, not recalling biographical information of a famous person, and not knowing patients’ own relationship to familiar people. Examples of complex compulsions and rigid thought process included adherence to rigid time schedules; dogmatism; hypergraphia; hypochondriasis; restricted color, clothing, diet, game, or puzzle preferences. Less commonly, patients exhibited simple repetitive motor or speech behaviors or hoarding behaviors. Examples of loss of verbal semantic knowledge included difficulty understanding word meaning or recognizing objects.

When rATL-predominant patients had both person-specific and verbal semantic knowledge loss (32 patients [69%]), the person-specific semantic knowledge symptoms were reported to precede the verbal semantic complaints in 24 patients (75%). Five patients (10%) had person-specific semantic knowledge symptoms without verbal semantic complaints, and six patients (14%) had verbal semantic complaints without person-specific semantic knowledge complaints. Only three patients (6%) had neither person-specific nor verbal semantic knowledge complaints.

While these initial symptoms in the rATL-predominant group emerged within the first three years of disease onset, additional symptoms (fifth, sixth, and beyond) arose as the disease progressed. Four years after disease onset, common symptoms included apathy and disinhibition. For these two symptoms, differences in reporting created ambiguity. Apathy was explicitly documented in the medical history as a clinical complaint of 11 patients, whereas on the NPI (Supplementary Table 5), apathy was noted in 39 patients, indicating a discrepancy between what caregivers report during the interview with the behavioral neurologist and when answering the NPI questions. Interestingly, the item of apathy on the NPI appeared mainly in the context of affective apathy questions rather than cognitive inertia or autoactivation/behavioral apathy and thus these behaviors could also be interpreted as loss of empathy. This potentially explains the discrepancy between clinical history and NPI with regards to apathy reporting and highlights the need for incorporating loss of empathy questions into the NPI. On history, disinhibition was reported in 23 patients, whereas on the NPI it was coded in 36 patients. In the majority of patients, disinhibition appeared as insensitivity to social context rather than as an impulse-control deficit, for instance making funny comments in a funeral rather than approaching strangers or engaging in dangerous activities. By history, episodic memory impairment, executive symptoms, dietary changes, motor neuron disease, and problems navigating were less frequent and happened later in the disease course. With regards to the less commonly reported symptoms in the rATL-predominant group, five patients (11%) had loss of sexual desire, two as an early symptom. Irritability was reported in eight patients (17%) and as an early symptom only in three patients (6%). Increased eating (7 patients, 8%) did not reach the degree of binge eating, oral exploration or consumption of inedible objects. Sleep changes, increased or decreased sleep, happened in five cases (10%), three of which were in the first year of disease onset.

In comparison, the early symptoms in the frontal-predominant group were lack of judgment/dysexecutive symptoms (24%), apathy (21%), and disinhibition (17%), as shown in Fig 3 and Supplementary Table 4. In the lATL-predominant patients, the early symptoms were verbal semantic knowledge loss (36%), person-specific knowledge deficits (16%), and rigid thought process (18%). Loss of empathy occurred significantly more often in rATL-compared to frontal- and lATL-predominant patients (χ² = 22, p <.001 and 11.2 p <.001, respectively). Deficits in person-specific knowledge were significantly more common in rATL-than frontal-predominant patients (χ² = 56.1, p < .001) but not lATL-predominant patients (χ² = 3.32, p < .68). Similarly, complex compulsions and rigid thought process was significantly more frequent in rATL-compared to frontal-, but not lATL-predominant groups (χ² = 19.54, p < .001 and χ² = 1.03, p = 0.3, respectively). In contrast apathy, disinhibition, and lack of judgment/dysexecutive symptoms were significantly more common in frontal- than rATL- and lATL-predominant patients (χ² = 11.5, p < .001, χ² = 5.2, p < .02, χ² = 18.8, p < .001, respectively).

Functional, cognitive, and behavioral results

Table 1, Table 2, and Figure 4 show the neuropsychological and socioemotional results. Neuropsychological testing demonstrated that, at presentation to the MAC, patients with rATL-predominant degeneration had severe impairment in both verbal semantic knowledge (on the BNT and PPVT) and nonverbal (visual) semantic knowledge (on the PPT-P). They also had deficits in verbal fluency, with more significant impairment in semantic than in lexical fluency, and on tests of executive functioning. Episodic memory was impaired, and visuospatial processing was intact.

On tests of socioemotional functioning, rATL-predominant degeneration patients had severe deficits in multiple domains. On the CATS, a static face perception test, although they had no difficulty with face identity-matching, their emotion labeling was impaired, suggesting a deficit in emotion recognition. Patients also had difficulty labeling the emotions of others in videos (TASIT-EET) and understanding paralinguistic cues (TASIT-SIM-M). On tests of Theory of Mind, patients had normal cognitive theory of mind scores but impaired emotional theory of mind scores, indicating poor comprehension of others’ emotional, but not cognitive, states. On the Famous Faces test, rATL-predominant degeneration patients could not identify the faces, names, or occupations, of famous people, indicating loss of person-specific semantic knowledge rather than prosopagnosia. On informant-based measures, rATL degeneration patients had abnormal scores on multiple measures of behavior and personality. Patients had very low emotional empathy (IRI Empathic Concern), cognitive empathy (IRI Perspective Taking) and socioemotional sensitivity (RSMS). On a personality inventory (IAS), informants rated patients as having low levels of interpersonal warmth and increased interpersonal coldness yet preserved interpersonal dominance.

Although emotion processing was disrupted in frontal-, rATL-, and, to a lesser degree, lATL-predominant patients (as measured by IRI-ET, IRI-PT, and RSMS), the groups differed in their specific constellations of social and behavioral deficits. While the frontal-predominant patients were impaired on both cognitive and emotional measures, the rATL- and lATL-predominant patients generally showed prominent deficits on the emotional, but not the cognitive, components of socioemotional tasks. Specifically, rATL- and lATL-predominant patients showed preserved cognitive theory of mind but impaired emotional theory of mind, whereas frontal-predominant patients showed impairment on both cognitive and emotional theory of mind (Figure 4 and Table 2). Similarly, rATL-predominant patients scored within normal limits, on the TASIT-Sincere task (a cognitive control task that assesses simple comprehension) but below expectations on the TASIT – EET (an emotion naming task) and the TASIT – Simple Sarcasm subscale (a test of paralinguistic cue detection). In contrast, the frontal-predominant group scored below expectations on all three TASIT subsets, suggesting both emotional and cognitive deficits. On informant-based personality measures, the rATL-predominant patients showed increased coldness but preserved dominance, whereas the frontal-predominant patients showed increased coldness (to a lesser degree than rATL-predominant patients) but reduced dominance. Furthermore, rATL-predominant patients showed reduction in both their activation and inhibition systems on the BIS/BAS. Reduced reward sensitivity was associated with reduced drive and fun-seeking in rATL-predominant patients, whereas in the frontal-predominant patients reduced reward sensitivity was associated with higher drive and fun-seeking (Fig 4, Table 2). This incongruence in the frontal-predominant group is consistent with the higher rates of impulsivity, such as making sexual comments, in this group as shown on the NPI (Supplemental table 5).

With regard to face processing and person-specific knowledge, while all disease groups had difficulty with Famous Faces Naming, only rATL-predominant patients (and to a lesser degree lATL-predominant patients) had impaired scores on the Famous Faces Familiarity and Semantic Association tests (Figure 4 and Table 2). On the CATS Face and Affect Matching, whereas the frontal-predominant patients were impaired on both tests, the rATL-predominant patients had preserved face matching but impaired affect matching. The lATL-predominant patients, in contrast, had intact scores on the Face and Affect Matching tests (Figure 4 and Table 2). The deficits in the rATL group did not appear to be due to broader deficits in visuospatial functioning as only the frontal-predominant patients demonstrated deficits in this area (Benson Figure Copy and Visual Object and Space Perception).

With regard to verbal semantics, both rATL- and lATL-predominant patients had greater deficits on the BNT than the frontal-predominant group. On episodic memory testing, rATL- and lATL-predominant patients showed worse verbal and visual memory impairment compared to the frontal-predominant group (Fig 4 and Table 2). On executive function tests, rATL- and lATL-predominant patients showed better executive function performance compared to the frontal-predominant group (Fig 4 and Table 1).

Genetic and pathology results

Pathology and genetic results are presented in Tables 3 and 4. Only two of the rATL-predominant patients had a genetic mutation, (one had a MAPT mutation, and one had a possibly pathogenic TARDBP mutation). Seventeen of the frontal-predominant patients (14 C9orf72 and three GRN) and five lATL-predominant patients (three MAPT and two C9orf72) had genetic mutations. APOE data were available in 40 of the rATL-predominant patients (55% E3/E3; 22% E3/E4; 18% E2/E3). No differences in APOE genotypes were found between subgroups with available APOE data (Supplementary table 7).

See Table 3 and Supplementary Table 6 for the pathology results. Most of the rATL-predominant patients with available autopsy data had FTLD-TDP type C pathology (68%). When considering all types of FTLD-TDP cases, regardless of the neuropathological subtype, the percentage increased (84%). Three patients had FTLD-tau (two FTLD-tau Pick’s type, and one patient had FTLD-tau unclassifiable 4R tauopathy). In the rATL-predominant group with autopsy data, three patients did not have loss of semantic knowledge on either history or testing, and, interestingly, none of these three cases had FTLD-TDP type C (two had FTLD-tau Pick’s type, and one had FTLD-TDP type B). In the lATL-predominant group, there was also large proportion of patients with TDP-43 pathology, in general, and TDP-43 type C, specifically. This is in contrast to the frontal-predominant group, which showed more heterogeneity in its underlying pathology (51% tauopathy, 22% FTLD-TDP type B, 12% FTLD-TDP type A, and 2% FTLD-TDP type C) (Table 3).