Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42126186›Full record

ArticleJournal of neuropsychology2026

Comparing the value of dynamic versus static image-based tests of emotion recognition in neurodegenerative disease.

Hulya Ulugut, Tal Shany-Ur, Angelina Quagletti, Faatimah Syed, Bailey McEachen, Patrick Callahan, Myrthe G Rijpma, Rea Antoniou, Joel H Kramer, Bruce L Miller and 7 more

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of neuropsychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors.

Hulya UlugutMemory and Aging Center, Department of Neurology, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5016-2505
Tal Shany-UrMemory and Aging Center, Department of Neurology, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA.
Angelina QuaglettiMemory and Aging Center, Department of Neurology, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA.
Faatimah SyedMemory and Aging Center, Department of Neurology, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA.
Bailey McEachenMemory and Aging Center, Department of Neurology, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA.
Patrick CallahanMemory and Aging Center, Department of Neurology, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA.
Myrthe G RijpmaMemory and Aging Center, Department of Neurology, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA.
Rea AntoniouMemory and Aging Center, Department of Neurology, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA.
Joel H KramerMemory and Aging Center, Department of Neurology, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA.
Bruce L MillerMemory and Aging Center, Department of Neurology, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA.
Gil D RabinoviciMemory and Aging Center, Department of Neurology, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA.
Katherine L PossinMemory and Aging Center, Department of Neurology, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA.
William W SeeleyMemory and Aging Center, Department of Neurology, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA.
Howard J RosenMemory and Aging Center, Department of Neurology, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA.
Maria Luisa Gorno-TempiniMemory and Aging Center, Department of Neurology, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA.
Virginia E SturmMemory and Aging Center, Department of Neurology, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA.
Katherine P RankinMemory and Aging Center, Department of Neurology, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA.

Funding

TDP-43 Loss-of-Function: Biology to BiomarkersP01AG019724 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI Jennifer Merrilees · 2002 to 2026
$67.2M
Progressive Aphasia Cognition Anatomy and ProgressionR01NS050915 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI MARIA LUISA GORNO TEMPINI · 2004 to 2026
$11.0M
Attention and Semantic Evaluation as Predictors of Empathy in Healthy Aging and Frontotemporal DementiaRF1AG029577 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI RANKIN, KATHERINE P · 2019 to 2019
$4.0M
Measuring Altered Social Behavior in Neurodegenerative DiseaseR01AG029577 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI RANKIN, KATHERINE P · 2008 to 2018
$3.6M
Training program in the neurology of language and neurodegenerative aphasiasK24DC015544 · NIDCD · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI GORNO TEMPINI, MARIA LUISA · 2016 to 2025
$1.9M
Alzheimer's AssociationNIA NIH HHS P01 AG019724NIA NIH HHS R01 AG029577NIA NIH HHS RF1 AG029577NIDCD NIH HHS K24 DC015544NIH HHSNINDS NIH HHS R01 NS050915
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

More precise subtyping within dementia syndromes leads to better prediction of pathology, supporting individualized, disease-specific treatments, and measuring emotion recognition abilities is particularly important for disorders like semantic behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia (sbvFTD). To evaluate current tools' effectiveness, we compared two dynamic video-based affect labelling tests-the Dynamic Affect Recognition Test (DART), The Awareness of Social Inference Test-Emotion Evaluation Test (TASIT-EET)-and a static image-based Comprehensive Affect Testing System-Name Affect (CATS-NA) test. A total of 555 persons with dementia (PwD), diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease (n = 154), progressive supranuclear palsy syndrome (n = 88), non-fluent variant primary progressive aphasia (nfvPPA) (n = 77), semantic variant PPA (svPPA) (n = 53), bvFTD (n = 124), sbvFTD (n = 65) and 133 healthy participants underwent emotion testing and MRI. All emotion labelling tests differentiated PwD from healthy controls, and FTD with social cognition deficits (sbvFTD, bvFTD and svPPA) from other PwDs. DART outperformed TASIT-EET and CATS-NA in differentiating sbvFTD from bvFTD and svPPA. Beyond emotion reading, TASIT-EET performance was also mediated by verbal memory and semantics, and CATS-NA was predicted by visuospatial and executive functions, while DART required only semantic knowledge. DART corresponded to expected structural anatomy of emotion, including predominantly right insula, anterior temporal and orbitofrontal lobes. While both TASIT-EET and CATS-NA shared that pattern, TASIT-EET additionally correlated with left temporal structures and CATS-NA associated with more dorsal frontoparietal regions. Careful selection of tests that utilize dynamic stimuli, reflect key neural circuits related to emotion and minimize demands from other cognitive domains may yield more accurate diagnoses.

Indexed as

EmotionsNeurodegenerative DiseasesNeuropsychological TestsRecognition, PsychologyAgedFemaleFrontotemporal DementiaHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedAlzheimer's diseasediagnostic testingemotionemotion readingemotion recognition testfrontotemporal dementianeurodegenerationneuropsychologyright temporalsemantictesting

Identifiers

PMID42126186
PMCPMC13341574

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.