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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Error profiles of facial emotion recognition in frontotemporal dementia and Alzheimer's disease.
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Psychogeriatrics, April 2023
|
| DOI | 10.1017/s1041610223000297 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kimberly Gressie, Fiona Kumfor, Her Teng, David Foxe, Emma Devenney, Rebekah M Ahmed, Olivier Piguet |
| Abstract |
To identify the patterns of errors in facial emotion recognition in frontotemporal dementia (FTD) subtypes compared with Alzheimer's disease (AD) and healthy controls. Retrospective analysis. Participants were recruited from FRONTIER, the frontotemporal dementia research group at the University of Sydney, Australia. A total of 356 participants (behavioral-variant FTD (bvFTD): 62, semantic dementia (SD)-left: 29, SD-right: 14, progressive non-fluent aphasia (PNFA): 21, AD: 76, controls: 90) were included. Facial emotion recognition was assessed using the Facial Affect Selection Task, a word-face matching task measuring recognition of the six basic emotions (anger, disgust, fear, happiness, sadness, and surprise), as well as neutral emotion, portrayed by black and white faces. Overall, all clinical groups performed significantly worse than controls with the exception of the PNFA subgroup (p = .051). The SD-right group scored worse than all other clinical groups (all p values < .027) and the bvFTD subgroup performed worse than the PNFA group (p < .001). The most frequent errors were in response to the facial emotions disgust (26.1%) and fear (22.9%). The primary error response to each target emotion was identified; patterns of errors were similar across all clinical groups. Facial emotion recognition is impaired in FTD and AD compared to healthy controls. Within FTD, bvFTD and SD-right are particularly impaired. Dementia groups cannot be distinguished based on error responses alone. Implications for future clinical diagnosis and research are discussed. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 22% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 11% |
| Australia | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 5 | 56% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 56% |
| Scientists | 2 | 22% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 11% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 17 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 3 | 18% |
| Other | 2 | 12% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 6% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 6% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 9 | 53% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 3 | 18% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 12% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 6% |
| Chemistry | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 10 | 59% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 05 September 2023.
All research outputs
#2,169,236
of 24,393,299 outputs
Outputs from International Psychogeriatrics
#145
of 2,014 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,588
of 401,786 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Psychogeriatrics
#2
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,393,299 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,014 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 401,786 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 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 92% of its contemporaries.