4.5 Article

Prosocial deficits in behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia relate to reward network atrophy

期刊

BRAIN AND BEHAVIOR
卷 7, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/brb3.807

关键词

empathy; generosity; giving; neurodegenerative; prosocial

资金

  1. National Institute on Aging [P50AG023501, R01AG019724, R01AG022983, R01AG052496, 1K23AG040127, 1K23AG045289]
  2. Larry L. Hillblom Foundation [2013-A-029-SUP, 2002/2J, 2007/2I]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

IntroductionEmpathy and shared feelings of reward motivate individuals to share resources with others when material gain is not at stake. Behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD) is a neurodegenerative disease that affects emotion- and reward-relevant neural systems. Although there is diminished empathy and altered reward processing in bvFTD, how the disease impacts prosocial behavior is less well understood. MethodsA total of 74 participants (20 bvFTD, 15 Alzheimer's disease [AD], and 39 healthy controls) participated in this study. Inspired by token-based paradigms from animal studies, we developed a novel task to measure prosocial giving (the Giving Game). On each trial of the Giving Game, participants decided how much money to offer to the experimenter, and prosocial giving was the total amount that participants gave to the experimenter when it cost them nothing to give. Voxel-based morphometry was then used to identify brain regions that were associated with prosocial giving. ResultsProsocial giving was lower in bvFTD than in healthy controls; prosocial giving in AD did not differ significantly from either of the other groups. Whereas lower prosocial giving was associated with atrophy in the right pulvinar nucleus of the thalamus, greater prosocial giving was associated with atrophy in the left ventral striatum. ConclusionThese findings suggest that simple acts of generosity deteriorate in bvFTD due to lateralized atrophy in reward-relevant neural systems that promote shared feelings of positive affect.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据