4.7 Article

Social cognition according to cognitive impairment in different clinical phenotypes of multiple sclerosis

Journal

JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGY
Volume 264, Issue 4, Pages 740-748

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00415-017-8417-z

Keywords

Multiple sclerosis; Cognition; Social cognition; Theory of mind; Executive function

Funding

  1. Ligue Francaise de la Sclerose en Plaques

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The objective of this study is to evaluate the relationship between social cognition (SC) and cognitive impairment in persons with multiple sclerosis (PwMS). A prospective study was conducted in 60 PwMS, 30 with relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS), 15 with secondary progressive MS (SPMS) and 15 with primary progressive MS (PPMS), and in healthy subjects (HS). All subjects were assessed by the Bordeaux Social Cognition Evaluation Protocol (PECS-B) (facial emotion recognition, theory of mind, emotional awareness and cognitive and affective alexithymia), by a large neuropsychological battery and by questionnaires (depression and anxiety). 43.3% of PwMS were impaired for at least one SC test. The proportion of PwMS with at least two impaired SC tests was similar in all three phenotypes (20%). Mean scores differed significantly between PwMS and HS only for the Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test, a test of Theory of Mind (ToM). ANOVA analyses showed an effect of phenotype on emotional awareness scores with lower scores in PPMS as compared to RRMS. ToM performance was significantly correlated (r (2) = 0.56) with executive functions, working memory and episodic memory scores. SC impairment was found in all phenotypes and was more prominent in cognitively impaired MS patients. Executive functions, and working and episodic memory performance accounts for approximately 50% of ToM performance. Emotional awareness is more impaired in progressive MS.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available