Background: Existing literature suggests that age affects recognition of affective facial expressions. Eye-tracking studies highlighted that age-related differences in recognition of emotions could be explained by different face exploration patterns due to attentional impairment. Gender also seems to play a role in recognition of emotions. Unfortunately, little is known about the differences in emotion perception abilities across lifespans for men and women, even if females show more ability from infancy. Objective: The present study aimed to examine the role of age and gender on facial emotion recognition in relation to neuropsychological functions and face exploration strategies. We also aimed to explore the associations between emotion recognition and quality of life. Methods: 60 healthy people were consecutively enrolled in the study and divided into two groups: Younger Adults and Older Adults. Participants were assessed for: emotion recognition, attention abilities, frontal functioning, memory functioning and quality of life satisfaction. During the execution of the emotion recognition test using the Pictures of Facial Affects (PoFA) and a modified version of PoFA (M-PoFA), subject’s eye movements were recorded with an Eye Tracker. Results: Significant differences between younger and older adults were detected for fear recognition when adjusted for cognitive functioning and eye-gaze fixations characteristics. Adjusted means of fear recognition were significantly higher in the younger group than in the older group. With regard to gender’s effects, old females recognized identical pairs of emotions better than old males. Considering the Satisfaction Profile (SAT-P) we detected negative correlations between some dimensions (Physical functioning, Sleep/feeding/free time) and emotion recognition (i.e., sadness, and disgust). Conclusion: The current study provided novel insights into the specific mechanisms that may explain differences in emotion recognition, examining how age and gender differences can be outlined by cognitive functioning and face exploration strategies.

Objective. Pain prevalence data for patients at various stages after stroke. Design. Repeated cross-sectional, observational epidemiological study. Setting. Hospital-based multicenter study. Subjects. Four hundred forty-three prospectively enrolled stroke survivors. Methods. All patients underwent bedside clinical examination. The different types of post-stroke pain (central post-stroke pain, musculoskeletal pains, shoulder pain, spasticity-related pain, and headache) were diagnosed with widely accepted criteria during the acute, subacute, and chronic stroke stages. Differences among the three stages were analyzed with χ²-tests. Results. The mean overall prevalence of pain was 29.56% (14.06% in the acute, 42.73% in the subacute, and 31.90% in the chronic post-stroke stage). Time course differed significantly according to the various pain types (P < 0.001). The prevalence of musculoskeletal and shoulder pain was higher in the subacute and chronic than in the acute stages after stroke; the prevalence of spasticity-related pain peaked in the chronic stage. Conversely, headache manifested in the acute post-stroke stage. The prevalence of central post-stroke pain was higher in the subacute and chronic than in the acute post-stroke stage. Fewer than 25% of the patients with central post-stroke pain received drug treatment. Conclusions. Pain after stroke is more frequent in the subacute and chronic phase than in the acute phase, but it is still largely undertreated.

Background: The Oxford Cognitive Screen (OCS) was recently developed with the aim of describing the cognitive deficits after stroke. The scale consists of 10 tasks encompassing five cognitive domains: attention and executive function, language, memory, number processing, and praxis. OCS was devised to be inclusive and un-confounded by aphasia and neglect. As such, it may have a greater potential to be informative on stroke cognitive deficits of widely used instruments, such as the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) or the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, which were originally devised for demented patients. Objective: The present study compared the OCS with the MMSE with regards to their ability to detect cognitive impairments post-stroke. We further aimed to examine performance on the OCS as a function of subtypes of cerebral infarction and clinical severity. Methods: 325 first stroke patients were consecutively enrolled in the study over a 9-month period. The OCS and MMSE, as well as the Bamford classification and NIHSS, were given according to standard procedures. Results: About a third of patients (35.3%) had a performance lower than the cutoff (<22) on the MMSE, whereas 91.6% were impaired in at least one OCS domain, indicating higher incidences of impairment for the OCS. More than 80% of patients showed an impairment in two or more cognitive domains of the OCS. Using the MMSE as a standard of clinical practice, the comparative sensitivity of OCS was 100%. Out of the 208 patients with normal MMSE performance 180 showed impaired performance in at least one domain of the OCS. The discrepancy between OCS and MMSE was particularly strong for patients with milder strokes. As for subtypes of cerebral infarction, fewer patients demonstrated widespread impairments in the OCS in the Posterior Circulation Infarcts category than in the other categories. Conclusion: Overall, the results showed a much higher incidence of cognitive impairment with the OCS than with the MMSE and demonstrated no false negatives for OCS vs MMSE. It is concluded that OCS is a sensitive screen tool for cognitive deficits after stroke. In particular, the OCS detects high incidences of stroke-specific cognitive impairments, not detected by the MMSE, demonstrating the importance of cognitive profiling.

Anomia, a word-finding difficulty, is a frequent consequence of poststroke linguistic disturbance, associated with fluent and nonfluent aphasia that needs long-term specific and intensive speech rehabilitation. The present study explored the feasibility of telerehabilitation as compared to a conventional face-to-face treatment of naming, in patients with poststroke anomia. Five aphasic chronic patients participated in this study characterized by: strictly controlled crossover design; well-balanced lists of words in picture-naming tasks where progressive phonological cues were provided; same kind of the treatment in the two ways of administration. ANOVA was used to compare naming accuracy in the two types of treatment, at three time points: baseline, after treatment, and followup. The results revealed no main effect of treatment type (P=0.844) indicating that face-to-face and tele-treatment yielded comparable results. Moreover, there was a significant main effect of time (P=0.0004) due to a better performance immediately after treatment and in the followup when comparing them to baseline. These preliminary results show the feasibility of teletreatment applied to lexical deficits in chronic stroke patients, extending previous work on telerehabilitation and opening new vistas for future studies on teletreatment of language functions.

Hemispatial neglect due to right parieto-temporo-frontal lesions has a negative impact on the success of rehabilitation, resulting in poor functional gain. Recent research has shown that different types of neglect can impact in a different way on rehabilitation outcomes. The availability of a sensitive test, useful for distinguishing egocentric and allocentric forms of neglect, may be clinically important as all current clinical instruments fail to distinguish between these forms of disturbance, yet they differentially predict outcome. The Apples Test is a new instrument useful to evaluate both egocentric and allocentric forms of neglect. In order to establish Italian norms for this diagnostic instrument the test was administered to a sample of 412 healthy people of both genders (201 M and 211 F), aged from 20 to 80 years enrolled from 14 different rehabilitation centers in Italy. Based on the data, we established pathological performance cut-offs for the accuracy score (total omission errors), the asymmetry score for egocentric neglect (omission error difference), the asymmetry score for allocentric neglect (commission error difference) and execution time. The usefulness of the Apples Test for diagnostic purposes is illustrated by presenting three patients with different forms of neglect (egocentric, allocentric and mixed neglect).