Impaired Recognition of Facial and Vocal Emotions in Mild Cognitive Impairment.

OBJECTIVE: The ability to recognize others' emotions is a central aspect of socioemotional functioning. Emotion recognition impairments are well documented in Alzheimer's disease and other dementias, but it is less understood whether they are also present in mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Results on facial emotion recognition are mixed, and crucially, it remains unclear whether the potential impairments are specific to faces or extend across sensory modalities. METHOD: In the current study, 32 MCI patients and 33 cognitively intact controls completed a comprehensive neuropsychological assessment and two forced-choice emotion recognition tasks, including visual and auditory stimuli. The emotion recognition tasks required participants to categorize emotions in facial expressions and in nonverbal vocalizations (e.g., laughter, crying) expressing neutrality, anger, disgust, fear, happiness, pleasure, surprise, or sadness. RESULTS: MCI patients performed worse than controls for both facial expressions and vocalizations. The effect was large, similar across tasks and individual emotions, and it was not explained by sensory losses or affective symptomatology. Emotion recognition impairments were more pronounced among patients with lower global cognitive performance, but they did not correlate with the ability to perform activities of daily living. CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate that MCI is associated with emotion recognition difficulties and that such difficulties extend beyond vision, plausibly reflecting a failure at supramodal levels of emotional processing. This highlights the importance of considering emotion recognition abilities as part of standard neuropsychological testing in MCI, and as a target of interventions aimed at improving social cognition in these patients.

Distinguishing mild cognitive impairment from healthy aging and Alzheimer's Disease: The contribution of the INECO Frontal Screening (IFS).

Executive functions are affected differently in healthy aging, Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer's Disease (AD), and evaluating them is important for differential diagnosis. The INECO Frontal Screening (IFS) is a brief neuropsychological screening tool, developed to assess executive dysfunction in neurodegenerative disorders. GOALS: We aimed to examine whether and how MCI patients can be differentiated from cognitively healthy controls (HC) and mild to moderate AD patients based on IFS performance. We also explored how IFS scores are associated with age, years of education, and depressive/anxious symptoms (as assessed by the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale). METHOD: IFS total scores were compared between 26 HC, 32 MCI and 21 mild to moderate AD patients. The three groups were matched for age and education. The Area Under the Curve (AUC) was analyzed and optimal cut-offs were determined. RESULTS: Healthy participants had higher IFS scores than both clinical groups, and MCI patients had higher scores than AD patients. IFS showed high diagnostic accuracy for the detection of MCI (AUC = .89, p < .001) and AD (AUC = .99, p < .001), and for the differentiation between the clinical groups (AUC = .76, p < .001). We provide optimal cut-offs for the identification of MCI and AD and for their differentiation. We also found that, in general, higher education predicted higher IFS scores (no associations with age and depressive/anxious symptoms were observed). Altogether, these findings indicate that evaluating executive functions with the IFS can be valuable for the identification of MCI, a high-risk group for dementia, and for differentiating this condition from healthy aging and AD.

Assessing Executive Dysfunction in Neurodegenerative Disorders: A Critical Review of Brief Neuropsychological Tools.

Executive function (EF) has been defined as a multifaceted construct that involves a variety of high-level cognitive abilities such as planning, working memory, mental flexibility, and inhibition. Being able to identify deficits in EF is important for the diagnosis and monitoring of several neurodegenerative disorders, and thus their assessment is a topic of much debate. In particular, there has been a growing interest in the development of neuropsychological screening tools that can potentially provide a reliable quick measure of EF. In this review, we critically discuss the four screening tools of EF currently available in the literature: Executive Interview-25 (EXIT 25), Frontal Assessment Battery (FAB), INECO Frontal Screening (IFS), and FRONTIER Executive Screen (FES). We first describe their features, and then evaluate their psychometric properties, the existing evidence on their neural correlates, and the empirical work that has been conducted in clinical populations. We conclude that the four screening tools generally present appropriate psychometric properties, and are sensitive to impairments in EF in several neurodegenerative conditions. However, more research will be needed mostly with respect to normative data and neural correlates, and to determine the extent to which these tools add specific information to the one provided by global cognition screening tests. More research directly comparing the available tools with each other will also be important to establish in which conditions each of them can be most useful.

Examining Executive Dysfunction with the Institute of Cognitive Neurology (INECO) Frontal Screening (IFS): normative values from a healthy sample and clinical utility in Alzheimer's disease.

BACKGROUND: The Institute of Cognitive Neurology (INECO) Frontal Screening (IFS) is a brief neuropsychological tool recently devised for the evaluation of executive dysfunction in neurodegenerative conditions. OBJECTIVE: In this study we present a cross-cultural validation of the IFS for the Portuguese population, provide normative values from a healthy sample, determine how age and education affect performance, and inspect its clinical utility in the context of Alzheimer's disease (AD). A comparison with the Frontal Assessment Battery (FAB) was undertaken, and correlations with other well-established executive functions measures were examined. METHODS: The normative sample included 204 participants varying widely in age (20-85 years) and education (3-21 years). The clinical sample (n = 21) was compared with a sample of age- and education-matched controls (n = 21). Healthy participants completed the IFS and the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE). In addition to these, the patients (and matched controls) completed the FAB and a battery of other executive tests. RESULTS: IFS scores were positively affected by education and MMSE, and negatively affected by age. Patients underperformed controls on the IFS, and correlations were found with the Clock Drawing Test, Stroop test, and the Zoo Map and Rule Shift Card tests of the Behavioral Assessment of the Dysexecutive Syndrome. A cut-off of 17 optimally differentiated patients from controls. While 88% of the IFS sub-tests discriminated patients from controls, only 67% of the FAB sub-tests did so. CONCLUSION: Age and education should be taken into account when interpreting performance on the IFS. The IFS is useful to detect executive dysfunction in AD, showing good discriminant and concurrent validities.