| Literature DB >> 23607361 |
Chunhua Xi1, Youling Zhu, Chunyan Zhu, Daohui Song, Yongguang Wang, Kai Wang.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous studies have indicated that the temporal lobe is involved in theory of mind (ToM). However, little attention has been paid to ToM in patients with cerebral infarction. In this study, we investigated the ability of ToM in patients with temporal lobe cerebral infarction (TLCI) using a variety of tests.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23607361 PMCID: PMC3646669 DOI: 10.1186/1744-9081-9-15
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Behav Brain Funct ISSN: 1744-9081 Impact factor: 3.759
Demographic, neuropsychological tests for the TLCI and HCs groups [mean (SD)]
| Age[years] | 55.16 (14.04) | 56(6.74) | F(1,37)=0.058 | 0.81 |
| Gender (M,F) | 16,3 | 13,7 | — | 0.35 |
| Education[years] | 10.11(3.33) | 10.95(2.31) | F(1,37)=0.89 | 0.35 |
| Time Since Lesion [days] | 36.42(8.91) | — | — | — |
| IQ | 97.84(8.03) | 100.5(7.81) | F(1,37)=1.09 | 0.32 |
| NIH Stroke Scale | 4.68(2.94) | — | — | — |
| MMSE | 29.0 (0.75) | 29.25 (0.85) | F(1,37)=0.94 | 0.35 |
| HAMD | 2.95 (0.91) | 2.5 (1.19) | F(1,37)=1.72 | 0.19 |
| verbal fluency | 15.21 (3.08) | 17.45 (4.88) | F(1,37)=2.89 | 0.09 |
| Go-No-Go task | 2.0(0.58) | 2.6(0.5) | F(1,37)=12.02 | 0.001 |
| Forward digit span | 5.68(1.16) | 6.75 (1.29) | F(1,37)=7.33 | 0.01 |
| Backward digit span | 3.37 (1.07) | 4.9 (1.68) | F(1,37)=11.39 | 0.002 |
| AVLT | | | | |
| Trial 5 | 8.95 (1.90) | 11.05(2.19) | F(1,37)=10.22 | 0.003 |
| Delay recall | 8.32 (2.08) | 9.7(2.38) | F(1,37)=3.71 | 0.06 |
| Delay recognition | 12.89(1.37) | 13.65(1.63) | F(1,37)=2.44 | 0.13 |
Figure 1Composite images of damaged brain regions in the group of patients with temporal lobe cerebral infarction. Areas damaged in a subject are shown in purple; warmer shades denote the degree to which lesions involve the same structures in 2 or more individuals.
Figure 2Types of errors made on the faux pas task. The TLCI group had impairment on faux-pas–related questions. The figure indicates that patients with TLCI could correctly identify the faux pas and answer the control questions. The TLCI group made more errors in understanding the mental states of the speakers and listeners than HC (Question 3 and 4) (*p < 0.001 vs. HC).
Figure 3Performance in the Reading the Mind in the Eyes (RME) test. In the RME (emotion recognition) test, the performance of the TLCI group was worse than that of the HC group. However, there were no significant differences between the 2 groups in terms of performance in the gender-recognition task (*p < 0.001 vs. HC).
Correlations between ToM and background and neuropsychological testing in patients with TLCI
| | |||||||||||||
| Eyes mind | 1 | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Eyes gender | 0.11 | 1.00 | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Total faux pas-related | 0.01 | 0.39 | 1.00 | | | | | | | | | | |
| IQ | 0.14 | 0.01 | −0.30 | 1.00 | | | | | | | | | |
| NIHSS | 0.05 | −0.17 | −0.22 | 0.08 | 1.00 | | | | | | | | |
| MMSE | 0.29 | 0.17 | −0.05 | 0.21 | −0.28 | 1.00 | | | | | | | |
| HAMD | 0.16 | 0.30 | 0.21 | −0.43 | −0.21 | 0.16 | 1.00 | | | | | | |
| Verbal fluency | 0.09 | −0.10 | 0.33 | 0.30 | −0.34 | −0.15 | −0.17 | 1.00 | | | | | |
| Trial 5 | 0.21 | 0.38 | 0.51* | 0.19 | −0.04 | 0.43 | 0.06 | −0.16 | 1.00 | | | | |
| Delay recall | 0.17 | 0.22 | 0.32 | 0.14 | −0.23 | 0.25 | −0.20 | −0.19 | 0.62** | 1.00 | | | |
| Delay recognition | 0.16 | −0.20 | 0.00 | −0.08 | −0.08 | 0.38 | −0.13 | 0.18 | −0.13 | −0.14 | 1.00 | | |
| Go-No-Go | 0.45 | −0.07 | 0.00 | 0.08 | 0.13 | 0.00 | −0.13 | 0.12 | 0.10 | −0.09 | 0.07 | 1.00 | |
| Forward digit span | 0.35 | 0.08 | −0.03 | −0.06 | −0.16 | 0.19 | −0.12 | 0.16 | 0.17 | −0.14 | 0.29 | 0.58** | 1.00 |
| Backward digit span | 0.40 | −0.11 | 0.00 | −0.07 | 0.18 | 0.00 | −0.26 | 0.14 | 0.26 | −0.16 | 0.26 | 0.63** | 0.59** |
*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Correlations between ToM and background and neuropsychological testing in the HC group
| | ||||||||||||
| Eyes mind | 1.00 | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Eyes gender | 0.04 | 1.00 | | | | | | | | | | |
| Total faux pas-related scores | 0.06 | 0.37 | 1.00 | | | | | | | | | |
| IQ | 0.17 | −0.02 | 0.13 | 1.00 | | | | | | | | |
| MMSE | 0.04 | 0.30 | 0.38 | 0.14 | 1.00 | | | | | | | |
| HAMD | 0.37 | −0.06 | 0.00 | −0.09 | 0.49* | 1.00 | | | | | | |
| Verbal fluency | 0.08 | −0.24 | 0.17 | 0.22 | −0.12 | −0.03 | 1.00 | | | | | |
| Trial 5 | 0.12 | 0.17 | 0.16 | 0.16 | −0.21 | −0.05 | 0.14 | 1.00 | | | | |
| Delay recall | 0.18 | 0.06 | −0.09 | 0.14 | −0.25 | 0.09 | 0.16 | 0.87** | 1.00 | | | |
| Delay recognition | −0.09 | −0.16 | 0.20 | 0.12 | 0.03 | 0.23 | 0.25 | 0.43 | 0.36 | 1.00 | | |
| Go-No-Go | 0.20 | −0.12 | 0.08 | 0.29 | −0.25 | −0.26 | 0.16 | 0.45* | 0.42 | 0.01 | 1.00 | |
| Forward digit span | 0.09 | −0.12 | 0.06 | 0.15 | 0.30 | 0.26 | 0.17 | 0.23 | 0.18 | 0.66** | 0.16 | 1.00 |
| Backward digit span | 0.22 | −0.04 | 0.24 | 0.21 | 0.35 | 0.31 | 0.24 | 0.26 | 0.15 | 0.33 | 0.14 | 0.54* |
*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).