An interventional study of Questionary in Narcolepsy and Social Cognition, sponsored by Centre Hospitalier Universitaire, Amiens. Recruiting at 1 site in France. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-06-01.
Sponsored by Centre Hospitalier Universitaire, Amiens · Not applicable, Interventional, and Screening
Narcolepsy is a chronic disabling neurologic disorder mainly characterised by excessive daytime sleepiness. Type 1 narcolepsy is associated with a deficit of hypocretin in the cerebrospinal fluid responsible for the cataplexy symptom while type 2 shows a normal hypocretin level and no cataplexy. While the development of narcolepsy is independent of parental social level, narcolepsy has a significant influence on educational level, grading, social outcome, and welfare consequences. Several studies assessed global cognition efficiency, mood, and attention in narcoleptic patients but only a few specifically measured social cognition and mostly without a control group.
In a population of narcoleptics children, a severe impairment in social cognition is described for 20% of the group, contrary to 2 % for the control group. The literature also depicts some impairments in decision making, somatic and cognitive emotions responses but the emotion recognition seems to be preserved.
A better understanding of the social and cognitive aspects of narcolepsy could lead to a better treatment of the disease in its entirety, including if relevant specific cognitive behavioural therapy.
The protocol consists in a psychometric evaluation including several questionnaires in order to assess social cognition. It will be proposed to patients with type 1 or type 2 narcolepsy and patients with idiopathic hypersomnia.
157 studies on the registry are indexed under Narcolepsy; 37 are open to participants now.
This study's planned enrollment of 75 is close to the median of 78 across 114 interventional studies indexed under Narcolepsy.
Browse Narcolepsy studies →Centre Hospitalier Universitaire, Amiens is the lead sponsor of 586 studies on the registry; 185 are open to participants now.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.
Exclusion Criteria:
type 1 narcolepsy
Other: Questionary
type 2 narcolepsy
Other: Questionary
idiopathic hypersomnia
Other: Questionary
In addition to the usual care, the patient will complete the following validated questionnaires : SART (Sustained Attention to Response Task), IGT (Iowa Gambling Task), UPPS (Impulsive Behaviour Scale), TAS (Toronto Alexithymia Scale), BES (Basic Empathy Scale), FRET (Facial Emotions Recognition Task), ERF-CS, MASC (Movie for the Assessment of Social Cognition)
Mean SART score in the three groups
SART is Sustained Attention to Response Task. The Sustained Attention to Response Task (SART) is a computer-based go/no-go task that requires participants to withhold behavioral response to a single, infrequent target (often the digit 3) presented amongst a background of frequent non-targets (0-2, 4-9). There is evidence supporting the role of the SART as a measure of working memory, sustained attention, and impulse/inhibitory control.
Time frame: 2 years
Mean IGT score in the three groups
The Iowa gambling task (IGT) is a psychological task thought to simulate real-life decision making. Participants are presented with four virtual decks of cards on a computer screen. They are told that each deck holds cards that will either reward or penalize them, using game money. The goal of the game is to win as much money as possible. Net scores are calculated as follow: \[advantageous decks (C + D) minus disadvantageous decks (A + B)\] for five blocks of 20 selections.
Time frame: 2 years
Mean UPPS score in the three groups
UPPS (Impulsive Behaviour Scale). The Impulsive behavior scale (S-UPPS-P) is an instrument composed of 20 items rated on a four-point Likert scale (23): (1) disagree strongly, (2) disagree some, (3) agree some, and (4) agree strongly. Scores are presented for each of five subscales, plus a total impulsivity score. In addition to the raw scores, in order to put each subscale into the same metric, the mean is calculated for the items on each subscale, from 1 to 4, where 1 indicates that the respondent did not indorse impulsive answers, and 4 indicating a high level of self-reported impulsivity.
Time frame: 2 years
Plan to share: No
No publications or documents are linked to this record.
Eligibility is decided by the study team. Share this record with your doctor or contact the team directly.
Contact study teamGet an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.
Centre Hospitalier Universitaire, Amiens →