Search

Lifetime experiences and lifestyle, such as education and engaging in leisure activities, contribute to cognitive reserve (CR), which delays the onset of age-related cognitive decline. Word-finding difficulties have been identified as the most prominent cognitive problem in older age. Whether CR mitigates age-related word-finding difficulties is currently unknown. Using picture-naming and verbal fluency tasks, this online study aimed to investigate the effect of CR on word-finding ability in younger, middle-aged, and older adults. All participants were right-handed, monolingual speakers of British English. CR for both the period preceding and coinciding with the COVID-19 pandemic was measured through years of education and questionnaires concerning the frequency of engagement in cognitive, leisure, and physical activities. Linear mixed-effect models demonstrated that older adults were less accurate at action and object naming than middle-aged and younger adults. Higher CR in middle age predicted higher accuracies for action and object naming. Hence, high CR might not only be beneficial in older age, but also in middle age. This benefit will depend on multiple factors: the underlying cognitive processes, individual general cognitive processing abilities, and whether task demands are high. Moreover, younger and middle-aged adults displayed faster object naming compared to older adults. There were no differences between CR scores for the period preceding and coinciding with the pandemic. However, the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on CR and, subsequently, on word-finding ability might only become apparent in the long term. This article discusses the implications of CR in healthy ageing as well as suggestions for conducting language production studies online. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Understanding the role of peripheral defocus on central refractive development is critical because refractive errors can vary significantly with eccentricity and peripheral refractions have been implicated in the genesis of central refractive errors in humans. Two rearing strategies were used to determine whether peripheral hyperopia alters central refractive development in rhesus monkeys. In intact eyes, lens-induced relative peripheral hyperopia produced central axial myopia. Moreover, eliminating the fovea by laser photoablation did not prevent compensating myopic changes in response to optically imposed hyperopia. These results show that peripheral refractive errors can have a substantial impact on central refractive development in primates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Arthroscopic stabilization for anterior shoulder instability has been reported to result in a higher rate of recurrent instability compared to traditional open techniques. PURPOSE: To test the null hypothesis that there is no difference in the clinical outcomes in patients with recurrent anterior shoulder instability treated with open or arthroscopic stabilization. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1. METHODS: A consecutive series of 64 patients with recurrent anterior shoulder instability were randomized to receive either arthroscopic or open stabilization by a single surgeon. Magnetic resonance arthrogram studies were obtained preoperatively. These findings were compared to arthroscopic findings. Postoperative evaluations included range of motion, stability, and subjective assessments including Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, Simple Shoulder Test, Western Ontario Instability Index, and University of California, Los Angeles evaluation. Failure was defined as a second dislocation, recurrent subluxation, or symptoms precluding return to previous work or unrestricted active military duty. RESULTS: Sixty-one patients, 29 who received open stabilization and 32 who received arthroscopic stabilization, were evaluated at a mean of 32 months postoperatively (range, 24-48 months). Patient demographics were equivalent. Preoperative magnetic resonance arthrogram findings were confirmed at arthroscopic examination. The mean operative time was significantly shorter for the arthroscopic repairs (59 vs 149 minutes; P < .001). There were 3 clinical failures (2 open stabilizations, 1 arthroscopic stabilization) by the established criteria. There was a statistically significant improvement from preoperative to postoperative Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation scores in both groups (P < .001). The mean loss of motion (compared to the contralateral shoulder) was greater in the open shoulders. Subjective evaluations were equal in both groups. Conclusion: Clinical outcomes after arthroscopic and open stabilization were comparable. Preoperative magnetic resonance arthrograms in shoulders with anterior instability allow an accurate diagnosis of intra-articular abnormality that correlates well with operative findings. Arthroscopic stabilization for recurrent anterior shoulder instability can be performed safely; the clinical outcomes are comparable to those after traditional open stabilization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]