BackgroundThe present study examines the relationship between obesity, executive functions, and body image in a nonclinical population from southern Italy.MethodsGeneral executive functioning (Frontal Assessment Battery–15), and body image disturbances (Body Uneasiness Test) were assessed in a sample including 255 participants (138 females, M age = 43.51 years, SD = 17.94, range = 18–86 years; M body mass index (BMI) = 26.21, SD = 4.32, range = 18.03–38.79).FindingsMultiple Linear Regression Analysis indicated that age, years of education, FAB15 score, body image concerns, and avoidance predicted the variance of BMI. A subsequent mediation analysis highlighted that the indirect effect of FAB15 on BMI through avoidance was statistically significant.InterpretationOur results suggest that more performing executive functioning predicts a decrease in BMI that is partially due to the mitigation of avoidance behaviors.

BackgroundParkinson’s disease (PD) is a chronic neurodegenerative disorder characterized by motor and non-motor symptoms. The latter mainly include affective, sleep, and cognitive deficits. Non-demented PD patients often demonstrate impairments in several executive domains following neuropsychological evaluation. The current pilot study aims at assessing the discriminatory power of the Frontal Assessment Battery-15 (FAB15) in differentiating (i) non-demented PD patients and healthy controls and (ii) PD patients with more and less pronounced motor symptoms.MethodsThirty-nine non-demented early-stage PD patients in the “on” dopamine state (26 females, mean age = 64.51 years, SD = 6.47, mean disease duration = 5.49 years, SD = 2.28) and 39 healthy participants (24 females, mean age = 62.60 years, SD = 5.51) were included in the study. All participants completed the FAB15. Motor symptoms of PD patients were quantified via the Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale-Part III (UPDRS-Part III) and Hoehn and Yahr staging scale (H&Y).ResultsThe FAB15 score, adjusted according to normative data for sex, age, and education, proved to be sufficiently able to discriminate PD patients from healthy controls (AUC = 0.69 [95% CI 0.60–0.75], SE = 0.06, p = 0.04, optimal cutoff = 11.29). Conversely, the battery lacked sufficient discriminative capability to differentiate PD patients based on the severity of motor symptoms.ConclusionThe FAB15 may be a valid tool for distinguishing PD patients from healthy controls. However, it might be less sensitive in identifying clinical phenotypes characterized by visuospatial impairments resulting from posteroparietal and/or temporal dysfunctions. In line with previous evidence, the battery demonstrated to be not expendable in the clinical practice for monitoring the severity of PD-related motor symptoms.