A BS TRACT: Background: Primary dystonia is conventionally considered as a motor disorder, though an emerging literature reports associated cognitive dysfunction.Objectives: Here, we conducted meta-analyses on studies comparing clinical measures of cognition in persons with primary dystonia and healthy controls (HCs). Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and PsycINFO (January 2000-October 2020). Analyses were modeled under random effects. We used Hedge's g as a bias-corrected estimate of effect size, where negative values indicate lower performance in dystonia versus controls. Between-study heterogeneity and bias were primarily assessed with Cochran's Q, I 2 , and Egger's regression. Results: From 866 initial results, 20 studies met criteria for analysis (dystonia n = 739, controls n = 643; 254 effect sizes extracted). Meta-analysis showed a significant combined effect size of primary dystonia across all studies (g = À0.56, P < 0.001), with low heterogeneity (Q = 25.26, P = 0.15, I 2 = 24.78). Within-domain effects of primary dystonia were motor speed = À0.84, nonmotor speed = À0.83, global cognition = À0.65, language = À0.54, executive functioning = À0.53, learning/memory = À0.46, visuospatial/construction = À0.44, and simple/complex attention = À0.37 (P-values <0.01). High heterogeneity was observed in the motor/nonmotor speed and learning/memory domains. There was no evidence of publication bias. Moderator analyses were mostly negative but possibly underpowered. Blepharospasm samples showed worse performance than other focal/cervical dystonias. Those with inherited (ie, genetic) disease etiology demonstrated worse performance than acquired. Conclusions: Dystonia patients consistently demonstrated lower performances on neuropsychological tests versus HCs. Effect sizes were generally moderate in strength, clustering around À0.50 SD units. Within the speed domain, results suggested cognitive slowing beyond effects from motor symptoms. Overall, findings indicate dystonia patients experience multidomain cognitive difficulties, as detected by neuropsychological tests.

No abstract

No abstract

Objective This study evaluated the effect of individual differences in diurnal preferences on a problem-solving test of intelligence and a measure of a personality trait of how much someone enjoys thinking. Method Archival data from 85 participants who had completed measures online were utilized in this study. The sample was 51.8% female, 71.8% Caucasian, and mean age was 19.5. Participants completed the Morningness-Eveningness Questionnaire (MEQ), Composite Morningness Questionnaire (CMQ), Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT), and Need for Cognition Scale-Short Form (NFC). Raw score totals were utilized. Diurnal preferences were later grouped for morning, evening, or in between based on published MEQ and CMQ cutoffs. Lower scores indicate evening types, and higher scores indicate morning types. Results Scores on measures of diurnal preference were significantly positively related to NFC (MEQ r = 0.28, p = 0.011; CMQ r = 0.36, p = 0.001) meaning that morning types tend to enjoy effortful mentation more. Diurnal preferences were not significantly related to CRT performance. One-way ANOVA was performed with diurnal preferences as the group factor and NFC and CRT as dependent variables. Significant main effects were not found for MEQ and NFC nor MEQ and CRT. Significant main effects were found for CMQ and NFC F(2,77) = 5.33, p = 0.007, but not for CMQ and CRT. Conclusion These findings indicate that diurnal preference was not associated with performance on the problem-solving intelligence test used in this study. However, morning types appear to be higher for personality traits related to motivation to engage in thinking and would be expected to do better on some cognitive tests that demand more test engagement.

Objective This study examined item performance on Trial 1 of the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM). We also identified items that were most often missed in individuals with genuine effort. Method Participants were 106 adults seen for disability claims (87.7% male; 70.5% Caucasian, 26.7% Black; age range 22–84 years, Mage = 44.42 years, SD = 13.07; Meducation = 13.58, SD = 2.05) who completed and passed the TOMM as part of a larger battery. Mean score Trial 1 was 43.08, SD = 5.49. Mean score on Trial 2 was 48.98, SD = 1.54. Results Frequency analysis indicated that &gt;95% of the sample correctly identified six items on Trial 1: item 1-spinning wheel (97.2%), item 8-musical notes (99.1%), item 38-ice cream (98.1%), item 41-life preserver (95.3%), item 45-iron (95.3%), and item 47-dart (98.1%). Nine items were correctly identified on Trial 1 by &lt;80% of the sample: item 2-tissue box (77.4%), item 6-suitcase (77.4%), item 20-motorcycle (77.4%), item 22-jack-in-the box (71.7%), item 26-light bulb (75.5%), item 27-maple leaf (72.6%), item 32-racket (79.2%), item 36-birdhouse (79.2%), item 44-pail & shovel (66.0%). Conclusions These findings suggest that items on Trial 1 of the TOMM differ in difficulty in a disability claims sample who performed genuinely on the TOMM. Items 1, 8, 38, 41, 45, and 47 are good candidates for a rarely missed index where failure of these items would be probabilistically unlikely. Future research should evaluate whether these items are failed at higher rates in cases of borderline TOMM performance to improve sensitivity to feigning.