↓ Skip to main content

Increased subjective experience of non-target emotions in patients with frontotemporal dementia and Alzheimer’s disease

Overview of attention for article published in Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 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
Increased subjective experience of non-target emotions in patients with frontotemporal dementia and Alzheimer’s disease
Published in
Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, June 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.cobeha.2017.05.017
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kuan-Hua Chen, Sandy J Lwi, Alice Y Hua, Claudia M Haase, Bruce L Miller, Robert W Levenson

Abstract

Although laboratory procedures are designed to produce specific emotions, participants often experience mixed emotions (i.e., target and non-target emotions). We examined non-target emotions in patients with frontotemporal dementia (FTD), Alzheimer's disease (AD), other neurodegenerative diseases, and healthy controls. Participants watched film clips designed to produce three target emotions. Subjective experience of non-target emotions was assessed and emotional facial expressions were coded. Compared to patients with other neurodegenerative diseases and healthy controls, FTD patients reported more positive and negative non-target emotions, whereas AD patients reported more positive non-target emotions. There were no group differences in facial expressions of non-target emotions. We interpret these findings as reflecting deficits in processing interoceptive and contextual information resulting from neurodegeneration in brain regions critical for creating subjective emotional experience.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 53 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 19%
Student > Master 6 11%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Researcher 4 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Other 9 17%
Unknown 17 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 16 30%
Neuroscience 6 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 6%
Computer Science 3 6%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 17 32%
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 23 March 2018.
All research outputs
#15,742,933
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences
#768
of 1,181 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#182,388
of 331,588 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences
#13
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,181 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.1. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 331,588 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.