No abstract

One of the most complicated aspects of caring for patients with dementia is dementia-driven wandering due to its adverse ramifications. We report a case of an 80-year-old man who had been previously diagnosed with dementia (with a score of 6 on the Reisberg Global Deterioration Scale - GDS). The patient went to an Adult Day Care Center on a daily basis where he demonstrated wandering behavior with a high rate of escape attempts (the number of times the Center's glass exit door was approached). The objective of this study is to present effective non-pharmacological intervention strategies for dementia-driven wandering; assessed strategies included: environmental (subjective barriers), cognitive/behavioral (cognitive training with differential reinforcement), and combined (subjective barriers + cognitive/behavioral). The results showed that all of these three strategies significantly decreased the number of escape attempts.

Previous studies on the development of executive functions (EFs) in middle childhood have traditionally focused on cognitive, or “cool,” EFs: working memory, inhibitory control and cognitive flexibility. However, knowledge of the development of socio-emotional, or “hot,” EFs, such as delay of gratification, decision-making and theory of mind, is more limited. The main aims of this systematic review were to characterize the typical development of both the primary cool and hot EFs in middle childhood, and to identify the main tools for evaluating EFs as a whole. We conducted a systematic search on studies of cognitive and socio-emotional EFs published in the last 5 years in Pubmed, PsycInfo, and WoS databases. Of 44 studies selected, we found a variety of tasks measuring cool EFs, while measures of hot EFs were limited. Nevertheless, the available data suggest that cool and hot components follow distinct, but related, developmental trajectories during middle childhood.

Background: Patients with psychosis often present significant neurocognitive deficits, with executive function deficits (EEFF) being one of the most relevant cognitive impairments with the greatest impact on the functioning of their daily lives. However, although various findings of executive involvement were reported, it is not entirely clear whether there is a differential pattern of involvement according to the clinical symptoms or the deficits occur in all or only in some subcomponents of EEFF.

The present study had two main aims: (1) to determine whether deaf children show higher rates of key behaviors of ADHD (inattentive, hyperactive, and impulsive behaviors) and of Conduct Disorder—CD—(disruptive, aggressive, or antisocial behaviors) than hearing children, also examining whether the frequency of these behaviors in deaf children varied based on cochlear implant (CI) use, type of school (regular vs. specific for deaf) and level of receptive vocabulary; and (2) to determine whether any behavioral differences between deaf and hearing children could be explained by deficits in inhibitory control. We measured behaviors associated with ADHD and CD in 34 deaf and hearing children aged 9–10 years old, using the revised Spanish version of the Conners scale. We then assessed inhibitory control ability using a computerized Stroop task and a short version of the Attention Network Test for children. To obtain a measure of the level of receptive vocabulary of the deaf children we used a Spanish version of the Carolina Picture Vocabulary Test for Deaf and hearing-impaired children. Deaf children showed significantly higher rates of behaviors associated with ADHD and CD, and over 85% of cases detected with high risk of ADHD-inattentive type in the entire present sample were deaf children. Further, in the group of deaf children a negative correlation was found between receptive vocabulary and frequency of disruptive, aggressive, or antisocial behaviors associated with CD. However, inhibitory control scores did not differ between deaf and hearing children. Our results suggested that the ADHD-related behaviors seen in deaf children were not associated with a deficit in inhibitory control, at least in the interference suppression subcomponent. An alternative explanation could be that these behaviors are reflecting an adaptive strategy that permits deaf children to access information from their environment which is not available to them via audition.