Subjects were 22 Alzheimer's disease patients, 14 normal control subjects, and 10 psychiatric control subjects. All were right-handed.
+Table 1 shows the demographic and clinical characteristics of AD patients and control subjects. Subjects were 37 Caucasians, 7 African Americans, 1 Hispanic, and 2 Asians. Half of the PC subjects received diagnoses of generalized anxiety disorder and half received diagnoses of bipolar mood disorder. MMSE scores in the AD patients ranged from 9 to 26 and were significantly lower than those of the PC and NC subjects. There were no significant differences between AD patients, PC subjects, and NC subjects in age, education, ethnicity, Ham-D scores, or STAI scores. The PC group had a significantly higher proportion of male subjects. No significant correlations were found between performance on the facial emotion tasks and age, education, Ham-D score, or STAI scores. Performance on Benton Facial Recognition correlated significantly with performance on Facial Emotion Matching (
r=0.68;
P<0.001), Same—Different Emotion Differentiation (
r=0.50;
P<0.001), and Facial Emotion Labeling (
r=0.39;
P<0.01). There was no significant effect of gender on performance on any of the facial processing tasks.
+Table 2 shows the results of individual ANOVAs for the four facial processing tasks across the three groups. Based on the overall MANOVA, the number of correct responses on the facial processing tasks varied significantly across the groups (
F=22.5, df=4,41,
P<0.0001). The individual ANOVAs showed that the effect of group was significant for each of the four facial processing tasks. Post hoc testing with Fisher's PLSD test showed that AD patients made fewer correct responses than NC subjects and PC patients on Facial Emotion Matching, Same—Different Emotion Differentiation, Facial Emotion Labeling, and Benton Facial Recognition. There were no significant differences between the NC and PC groups. The performance of the AD patients on two of the four facial processing tasks were significantly correlated with the severity of dementia as measured by the MMSE. Correlations between the MMSE and each of the four facial processing tasks in the AD patients were
r=0.61 (
P=0.003) for Facial Emotion Matching;
r=0.59 (
P=0.005) for Benton Facial Recognition;
r=0.42 (
P=0.06) for Same—Different Emotion Differentiation; and
r=0.09 (not significant) for Facial Emotion Labeling.
+Table 3 shows the results of individual ANCOVAs and the covariate adjusted means for the three facial emotion processing tasks across the three groups when performance on the Benton Facial Recognition Test was used as a covariate. The overall MANCOVA showed that the covariate adjusted performance on the facial emotion processing tasks varied significantly across the groups (
F=4.27, df=3,41,
P=0.01). The individual ANCOVAs showed that the effect of group was significant for Same—Different Emotion and Emotion Labeling. Post hoc
t-tests of the covariate adjusted scores showed that AD patients made fewer correct responses than the NC subjects on Same—Different Emotion and fewer correct responses than the NC subjects and the PC patients on Emotion Labeling. ANCOVA of the Emotion Matching task showed a trend toward an effect of group. Post hoc
t-tests of the covariate adjusted scores revealed a strong trend suggesting that AD patients had lower covariate adjusted scores than the NC subjects. There were no significant differences between the NC and PC groups.
A mixed-design ANOVA, with one between-subjects variable (diagnostic group) and one within-subjects variable (the six different facial expressions of emotion), was performed on both Emotion Labeling and the Emotion Matching to determine if AD patients had a disproportionate deficit in processing any specific facial expressions of emotion. Analysis of the Emotion Labeling data revealed significant main effects for group (F=9.5, df=2,43, P=0.0004) and emotion (F=27.3, df=5,43, P=0.0004), and a significant interaction between group and emotion (F=7.8, df=10,215, P=0.006). Post hoc univariate ANOVAs showed a significant effect of group for sad (F= 10.0, df=2,43, P=0.0003), surprised (F= 4.3, df=2,43, P=0.020), and disgusted faces (F= 6.5, df=2,43, P=0.003). Fisher's PLSD test showed that AD patients performed significantly worse than NC subjects in the labeling of sad (P=0.0002), surprised (P=0.02), and disgusted faces (P=0.002), and significantly worse than PC subjects in labeling sad (P=0.004) and surprised faces (P=0.02). The interaction effect was further analyzed by calculating the relative performance scores for each emotion as the difference between the subject's raw score on that emotion and the subject's average score on the other five emotions. The relative performance score can identify deficits in processing a specific emotion that are disproportionate to the overall deficits in processing facial emotions in AD. Univariate ANOVAs of the relative performance scores for each emotion showed a significant effect of group for sad (F=5.8, df=2,43, P=0.006), happy (F=4.5, df=2,43, P=0.017), and disgusted faces (F=4.5, df=2,43, P=0.017). Fisher's PLSD test showed that AD patients had significantly worse relative performance with sad faces than NC (P=0.004) and PC (P=0.02) subjects, but significantly better relative performance with happy faces than NC subjects (P=0.005).
The main effect for emotion across groups was due to three patterns of significant differences. Performance on labeling of happy faces was significantly better than all other emotions. Performance was significantly better for labeling surprised faces than all other facial emotions except happy faces. Performance was significantly worse for labeling fearful faces than all other facial emotions.
Analysis of the Facial Emotion Matching task revealed the expected significant main effect for group (F=16.0, df=2,43, P<0.0001) and a significant main effect for emotion (F=16.2, df=5,43, P<0.0001), but no significant interaction effect between group and emotion (F=1.1, df=10,215, not significant). The lack of an interaction effect indicated that no disproportionate deficit in processing a specific facial expression of emotion in AD was evident in the Emotion Matching task data. Post hoc univariate ANOVAs confirmed that AD patients performed significantly worse than NC subjects in matching faces for all six emotions. The main effect for emotion across groups was due to a pattern of significant differences that was generally similar to that observed in the analysis of the Facial Emotion Labeling task. Performance on happy faces was significantly better than all other emotions. Performance was significantly worse for faces expressing fear and disgust than the other four facial emotions.