Cited by 70Dementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchSpatial Cognition and NavigationAlzheimer's disease research and treatments

Egocentric versus allocentric spatial memory in behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia and Alzheimer's disease

Open access
Tu, Sicong, Spiers, Hugo J., Hodges, John R., Piguet, Olivier, Hornberger, Michael·2017·Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease

Abstract

Background: Diagnosis of behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD) can be challenging, in particular when patients present with significant memory problems, which can increase the chance of a misdiagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Growing evidence suggests spatial orientation is a reliable cognitive marker able to differentiate these two clinical syndromes. Objective: Assess the integrity of egocentric and allocentric heading orientation and memory in bvFTD and AD, and their clinical implications. Method: A cohort of 22 patients with dementia (11 bvFTD; 11 AD) and 14 healthy controls were assessed on the virtual supermarket task of spatial orientation and a battery of standardized neuropsychological measures of visual and verbal memory performance. Results: Judgements of egocentric and allocentric heading direction were differentially impaired in bvFTD and AD, with AD performing significantly worse on egocentric heading judgements than bvFTD. Both patient cohorts, however, showed similar degree of impaired allocentric spatial representation, and associated hippocampal pathology. Conclusions: The findings suggest egocentric heading judgements offer a more sensitive discriminant of bvFTD and AD than allocentric map-based measures of spatial memory.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3233/jad-160592

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Spatial memory, drawing and spatial orientation, and praxis are typically intact in behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia and can assist with differential diagnosis from Alzheimer's disease.

    “Conversely, spatial memory, 38 drawing and spatial orientation, 39 and praxis 40 are typically intact and can assist with differential diagnosis from Alzheimer's disease.”

    From Advances and controversies in frontotemporal dementia: diagnosis, biomarkers, and therapeutic considerations (2022) · cites this paper as [38]

    The Discussion (page not provided) reports that heading orientation was preserved in bvFTD and could aid differential diagnosis from Alzheimer’s disease. But it also reports impaired allocentric spatial memory in bvFTD, so the blanket claim that spatial memory is typically intact overstates this source. Drawing and praxis have separate citations in the citing sentence and are not assessed here. (LLM, conf=0.89)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [47]47. Mioshi, E., Dawson, K., Mitchell, J., Arnold, R., & Hodges, J. R. (2006). The Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination Revised (ACE-R): a brief cognitive test battery for dementia screening. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry, 21(11), 1078-1085.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tu, S., Spiers, H. J., Hodges, J. R., Piguet, O., & Hornberger, M.
Affiliations
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
  • University College London (GB)
  • University of East Anglia (GB)
Corresponding author
Hornberger, Michael
Venue
Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease
Published
2017-07-01
Volume
59
Issue
3
Pages
883-892
ISSN
  • 1387-2877 (ISSN-L)
  • 1875-8908
OpenAlex
W2729059723
Cited by
70
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 1
FWCI
6.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Alzheimer s Disease (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UEA Digital Repository (University of East Anglia) (acceptedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (acceptedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Isaac Newton Trust
  • Medical Research Council
  • Australian Research Council (DP1093279)
  • National Health and Medical Research Council (1022684, 1037746)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Automotive Engineering › Spatial Cognition and Navigation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Alzheimer's disease research and treatments
Keywords
behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia, Alzheimer's disease
MeSH terms
Aged, Alzheimer Disease, Female, Humans, Judgment, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Memory Disorders, Middle Aged, Neuropsychological Tests, Orientation, Space Perception, Cohort Studies, Case-Control Studies, Statistics, Nonparametric, Frontotemporal Dementia, Spatial Memory

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review