ScienceGuardians

ScienceGuardians

Did You Know?

ScienceGuardians hosts publishers too

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

Authors: Hulya Ulugut,Tal Shany‐Ur,Angelina Quagletti,Faatimah Syed,Bailey McEachen,Patrick Callahan,Myrthe G. Rijpma,Rea Antoniou,Joel H. Kramer,Bruce L. Miller,Gil D. Rabinovici,Katherine L. Possin,William W. Seeley,Howard J. Rosen,Maria Luisa Gorno‐Tempini,Virginia E. Sturm,Katherine P. Rankin
Journal: Journal of Neuropsychology
Publisher: Wiley
Publish date: 2026-5-13
ISSN: 1748-6645 DOI: 10.1111/jnp.70053
View on Publisher's Website
Up
0
Down
::

– Sample size is not consistent. Abstract says 555 PwD, but Methods says 561 PwD; the subtype counts (154+88+77+53+124+65) sum to 561. Which is correct?
– Table 2: DART model Age 95% CI is [−0.90, 0.01] despite B = −0.04, SE = 0.02———– impossible. Also, the column labeled β appears to contain t-values, not standardized betas. Were tables mislabeled/mistranscribed?
– Figure 1 caption states all ERTs effectively differentiated SCD from other PWD, but text reports CATS-NA p = 0.07 (AUC = 0.63). Please reconcile.
– Bora et al. (2016) is a Huntington’s disease social-cognition meta-analysis, not dementia/FTD emotion-recognition evidence. Is this the wrong reference?
– The 2025 consensus statement is cited as “Communication & Medicine, 5, 523”; is this journal/volume correct? Also, “Quental et al., n.d.” is listed as 2013; ORCID “Ulugul” vs “Ulugut”;

– Methods say the same shortened TASIT version was administered to all participants, but Limitations say not all completed an identical battery. Clarify.

  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.