Social cognition deficits and biometric signatures in the behavioural variant of Alzheimer’s disease

Abstract

The behavioural variant of Alzheimer’s disease (bvAD) is characterized by early predominant behavioural changes, mimicking the behavioural variant of frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD), which is characterized by social cognition deficits and altered biometric responses to socioemotional cues. These functions remain understudied in bvAD. We investigated multiple social cognition components (i.e. emotion recognition, empathy, social norms and moral reasoning), using the Ekman 60 faces test, Interpersonal Reactivity Index, empathy eliciting videos, Social Norms Questionnaire and moral dilemmas, while measuring eye movements and galvanic skin response. We compared 12 patients with bvAD with patients with bvFTD (n = 14), typical Alzheimer’s disease (tAD, n = 13) and individuals with subjective cognitive decline (SCD, n = 13), using ANCOVAs and age- and sex-adjusted post hoc testing. Patients with bvAD (40.1 ± 8.6) showed lower scores on the Ekman 60 faces test compared to individuals with SCD (49.7 ± 5.0, P < 0.001), and patients with tAD (46.2 ± 5.3, P = 0.05) and higher scores compared to patients with bvFTD (32.4 ± 7.3, P = 0.002). Eye-tracking during the Ekman 60 faces test revealed no differences in dwell time on the eyes (all P > 0.05), but patients with bvAD (18.7 ± 9.5%) and bvFTD (19.4 ± 14.3%) spent significantly less dwell time on the mouth than individuals with SCD (30.7 ± 11.6%, P < 0.01) and patients with tAD (32.7 ± 12.1%, P < 0.01). Patients with bvAD (11.3 ± 4.6) exhibited lower scores on the Interpersonal Reactivity Index compared with individuals with SCD (15.6 ± 3.1, P = 0.05) and similar scores to patients with bvFTD (8.7 ± 5.6, P = 0.19) and tAD (13.0 ± 3.2, P = 0.43). The galvanic skin response to empathy eliciting videos did not differ between groups (all P > 0.05). Patients with bvAD (16.0 ± 1.6) and bvFTD (15.2 ± 2.2) showed lower scores on the Social Norms Questionnaire than patients with tAD (17.8 ± 2.1, P < 0.05) and individuals with SCD (18.3 ± 1.4, P < 0.05). No group differences were observed in scores on moral dilemmas (all P > 0.05), while only patients with bvFTD (0.9 ± 1.1) showed a lower galvanic skin response during personal dilemmas compared with SCD (3.4 ± 3.3 peaks per min, P = 0.01). Concluding, patients with bvAD showed a similar although milder social cognition profile and a similar eye-tracking signature to patients with bvFTD and greater social cognition impairments and divergent eye movement patterns compared with patients with tAD. Our results suggest reduced attention to salient facial features in these phenotypes, potentially contributing to their emotion recognition deficits.