SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Cognitive and Behavioral Inhibition Deficits in Parkinson's Disease: The Hayling Test as a Reliable Marker.

Front Aging Neurosci · 2021-01-15

DOI: 10.3389/fnagi.2020.621603PMID: 33519424

Open accessresearch-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

ObjectiveThe present study seeks to provide an overview of executive (inhibition and flexibility) deficits in Parkinson's disease (PD) by combining a cognitive and behavioral approach.MethodsFifteen PD patients and 15 healthy controls underwent a neuropsychological and behavioral assessment including the Hayling and Trails Tests, the Questionnaire for Impulsive-Compulsive Disorders in Parkinson's Disease (QUIP-RS), the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF-A), and the Short Form-36 Health Survey (SF-36). The level of awareness of executive functioning was also analyzed. We finally explored how these neuropsychological and clinical outcomes could relate to each other.ResultsPD patients performed significantly worse in both neuropsychological tasks designed to evaluate inhibition abilities. They also reported more inhibition difficulties in everyday life and poorer quality of life. Associations between neuropsychological measures and self-reports were found. Moreover, as indicated by the discrepancy score, PD patients were as accurate as their relatives in self-reporting their executive daily difficulties.ConclusionInhibition and cognitive flexibility impairments assessed by the neuropsychological tests (Hayling and Trails tests) seem to capture daily life executive problems in PD. Furthermore, our study provides a deeper understanding of PD patients' and their relatives' experience of these executive dysfunctions.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.