ABSTRACT
Delay discounting refers to the depreciation of the value of a reward as a function of the time it takes to obtain it. Growing evidence shows altered delay discounting in several pathological conditions, including neurological disorders. Here, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the published literature on delay discounting (DD) in Parkinson's Disease (PD). We found steeper DD in patients with PD, compared to healthy controls, both in "on" and "off" dopaminergic medication. These results confirm altered DD in PD and suggest an independent influence of the dopaminergic medication and the clinical condition itself on it. Also the effect of impulse control disorder and of pharmacological treatments are analysed.
Subject(s)
Delay Discounting , Disruptive, Impulse Control, and Conduct Disorders , Parkinson Disease , Dopamine Agents/therapeutic use , Humans , Parkinson Disease/drug therapy , RewardABSTRACT
In the original publication of the article, the first and last names of the authors are interchanged and published incorrectly. The correct author names are given below: Paola Pennisi, Laura Giallongo, Giusy Milintenda, Michela Cannarozzo.
ABSTRACT
Psychometric, historiometric and psychiatric studies are controversial on a hypothetical link between psychopathology and creativity. In this study, we will try to contribute to this debate by analysing the case of autism. Is there a relationship between autism and creativity? If so, can we find the same relationship in a watered-down form in subjects with autistic traits? In order to answer these questions, we carried out a systematic literature review of the studies on this topic published in the last 10 years. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We also conducted a meta-analysis of data. We found that in the clinical population there are fewer creative performances than in control groups; nonetheless, it is possible to delineate a medium creative profile of subjects with autism. The average creative profile of people with autism shows that they are inhibited in fluency and flexibility, but that they display a high level of detail and a particularly high level of originality in works either generated during tests or created in private time. In particular, the level of detail reached in the latter condition seems to be higher in the autistic population than in the control groups. Better linguistic skills appear to be linked to better creative performances. Linguistic tests, if compared with visual and performative tests, seem to favour the expression of originality in subjects with autism. Although our data on autistic traits are compatible with the hypothesis that a high level of autistic traits is a watered-down replica of the cognitive profile of subjects with autism, we have no sufficient data to support this hypothesis.
Subject(s)
Autistic Disorder , Creativity , Humans , PsychometricsABSTRACT
Social robotics could be a promising method for Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD) treatment. The aim of this article is to carry out a systematic literature review of the studies on this topic that were published in the last 10 years. We tried to address the following questions: can social robots be a useful tool in autism therapy? We followed the PRISMA guidelines, and the protocol was registered within PROSPERO database (CRD42015016158). We found many positive implications in the use of social robots in therapy as for example: ASD subjects often performed better with a robot partner rather than a human partner; sometimes, ASD patients had, toward robots, behaviors that TD patients had toward human agents; ASDs had a lot of social behaviors toward robots; during robotic sessions, ASDs showed reduced repetitive and stereotyped behaviors and, social robots manage to improve spontaneous language during therapy sessions. Therefore, robots provide therapists and researchers a means to connect with autistic subjects in an easier way, but studies in this area are still insufficient. It is necessary to clarify whether sex, intelligence quotient, and age of participants affect the outcome of therapy and whether any beneficial effects only occur during the robotic session or if they are still observable outside the clinical/experimental context.
