Effects of sex hormonal levels and phases of the menstrual cycle in the processing of emotional faces

Several neuropsychiatry disorders have shown a sexual dimorphism in their incidence, symptom profile and therapeutic response. A better understanding of the impact of sex hormones in emotional processing sexual dimorphism could bring tight to this important clinical finding. Some studies have provided evidence of sex differences in the identification of emotional faces, however, results are inconsistent and such inconsistency could be related to the lack of experimental control of the sex hormone status of participants. More recently, a few studies evaluated the modulation of facial emotion recognition by the phase of the menstrual cycle and sex hormones, however, none of them directly compared these results with a group of men. We evaluated the accuracy of facial emotion recognition in 40 healthy volunteers. Eleven women were assigned to early follicular group, nine women to the ovulatory group and 10 women to luteal group, depending on the phase of menstrual cycle, and a group of 10 men were also evaluated. Estrogen, progesterone and testosterone levels were assessed. The performance of the groups in the identification of emotional faces varied depending on the emotion. Early follicular group were more accurate to perceive angry faces than all other groups. Sadness was more accurately recognized by early follicular group than by luteal group and regarding the recognition of fearful faces a trend to a better performance and a significantly higher accuracy was observed, respectively, in the early follicular group and in the ovulatory group, in comparison to men. In women, estrogen negatively correlated to the accuracy in perception of angry mate faces. Our results indicate sex hormones to be implicated in a sexual dimorphism in facial emotion recognition, and highlight the importance of estrogen specifically in the recognition of negative emotions such as sadness, anger and fear. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Protocol of orofacial myofunctional evaluation with scores

Objective: In the literature there is no validated instrument for the clinical evaluation of the orofacial myofunctional condition of children that will permit the examiner to express numerically his perception of the characteristics and behaviors observed. The proposal of this study is to describe a protocol for the evaluation of children aged 6-12 years in order to establish relations between the orofacial. myofunctional conditions and numerical scales. The protocol validity, reliability of the examiners and agreement between them was analyzed. Methods: Eighty children aged 6-12 years participated in the study. All were evaluated and 30 were selected at random for the analyses (age range: 72-149 months, mean = 103.3, S.D. = 23.57). Individuals with and without orofacial myofunctional. disorders were included. The examiners were two speech therapists property calibrated in orofacial myofunctional evaluation. Two protocols were constructed. One, based on traditional models, was called traditional orofacial. myofunctional. evaluation (TOME), and the other, with the addition of numerical scales, was called orofacial myofunctional. evaluation with scores (OMES). The clinical conditions included were: appearance, posture and mobility of lips, tongue, cheeks and jaws, respiration, mastication and deglutition. Statistical analysis was performed using the split-half reliability method. Means, standard deviations and the Spearman correlation coefficient were also calculated. Results: There was a statistically significant correlation between the evaluations of 30 children assessed with the TOME and OMES protocols (r = 0.85, p < 0.01). The reliability between protocols was 0.92. The test-retest reliability of the OMES instrument was 0.99 and the correlation was 0.98. Reliability between examiners 1 and 2 using the OMES protocol was 0.99, and the correlation was 0.98 (P < 0.01). Conclusion: The OMES protocot proved to be a valid and reliable instrument for orofacial myofunctional evaluation, permitting the grading of orofacial myofunctional conditions within the limits of the selected items. (c) 2007 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Knowledge and Practice of Prechewing/Prewarming Food by HIV-Infected Women

OBJECTIVE: HIV transmission has been associated with offering a child food prechewed by an HIV-infected caregiver. We assessed awareness of prechewing and oral prewarming of food by an adult before offering it to a child among HIV-infected pregnant women and clinical investigators in 3 Latin American countries. METHODS: HIV-infected pregnant women at 12 sites (Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development International Site Development Initiative Perinatal Longitudinal Study in Latin American Countries, a prospective cohort trial) in Argentina, Brazil, and Peru were administered a screening survey about prechewing/prewarming of infant foods and cautioned against these feeding practices. Survey responses were analyzed, overall, and stratified according to country. RESULTS: Of the 401 HIV-infected pregnant women interviewed, 34% had heard about prechewing (50% from Argentina, 32% from Brazil, and 36% from Peru), 23% knew someone who prechewed food for infants, and 4% had prechewed food in the past. Seventeen percent had heard about oral prewarming of food, 13% knew someone who prewarmed food for infants, and 3% had prewarmed food for an infant in the past. Women who reported knowing someone who prechewed were more likely to also know someone who prewarmed food (P < .0001). Few site investigators anticipated that their patients would be aware of these practices. CONCLUSIONS: Prechewing food, a potential risk factor for HIV transmission, and orally prewarming food, which has not been associated with HIV transmission but might expose a child to blood from an HIV-infected adult, are not uncommon practices in Latin America. Both practices should be further investigated. Site investigator responses underscore that health care providers could be missing information about cultural practices that patients may not report unless specifically asked. Pediatrics 2011;127:e1206-e1211