ParkinSong Online: Feasibility of Telehealth Delivery and Remote Data Collection for a Therapeutic Group Singing Study in Parkinson's.

BACKGROUND: Parkinson's disease can negatively affect vocal functioning and social wellbeing, particularly in the latter stages of disease progression. Face-to-face group singing interventions can improve communication and wellbeing outcomes, yet not all people can access in-person sessions. To help overcome barriers to participation, exploration of the feasibility and utility of online therapeutic singing programs is needed. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of a 12-week ParkinSong Online intervention on speech and wellbeing for people with Parkinson's disease. METHODS: A total of 28 participants with idiopathic Parkinson's disease were recruited to a single-arm feasibility study. Weekly 90-minute online sessions were co-facilitated by a music therapist and speech pathologist. Speech and wellbeing assessments were conducted pre and post intervention. Participant and facilitator surveys were administered after each session, with focus group interviews at the end of the program. RESULTS: The recruitment rate was high (90%) with no attrition, adverse events, or safety issues. There was good intervention fidelity, attendance (average 89%), and positive participant experience. Feasibility was good, with technology reported as the main challenge (connecting and navigating Zoom). No improvements were seen in voice measures or wellbeing outcomes in this small trial. The online format used in this study did not provide the same benefits as in-person ParkinSong sessions. CONCLUSIONS: ParkinSong Online is feasible for recreational purposes and social engagement provided that people have adequate technological knowledge or support. The optimal online delivery format to achieve communication improvements in Parkinson's awaits confirmation.

Differences in time-based task characteristics help to explain the age-prospective memory paradox.

Prior prospective memory (PM) research shows paradoxical findings-young adults outperform older adults in laboratory settings, but the reverse is found in naturalistic settings. Moreover, young-old outperform old-old adults in laboratory settings, but show no age differences in naturalistic settings. Here we highlight how time-based task characteristics have differed systematically between studies conducted in laboratory (time-interval cues) and naturalistic settings (time-of-day cues) and argue that this apparent paradox is a function of comparing disparate task types. In three experiments, we tested this hypothesis using analogous paradigms across settings, with event-based, time-of-day, and time-interval cued PM tasks. Experiment 1 compared young (n = 40) and older (n = 53) adults on a laboratory paradigm that measured PM tasks embedded in a virtual, daily life narrative; and on a conceptually parallel paradigm using a customized smartphone application (MEMO) in actual daily life. Results revealed that on the MEMO, older adults outperformed young adults on the time-of-day tasks but did not differ on the time-interval or event-based task. In contrast, older adults performed worse than young adults in the laboratory. Experiment 2 compared PM performance in young-old (n = 64) and old-old (n = 40) adults using the same paradigms. Young-old outperformed old-old adults in the laboratory; however, group differences were not evident in daily life. Experiment 3 compared young (n = 42) and older (n = 41) adults, and largely replicated the findings of Experiment 1 using a more demanding version of MEMO. These findings provide novel and important insights into the limiting conditions of the age-PM paradox and the need for a finer theoretical delineation of time-based tasks.

The Wisdom to Know the Difference.

The ability to regulate emotions is central to well-being, but healthy emotion regulation may not merely be about using the "right" strategies. According to the strategy-situation-fit hypothesis, emotion-regulation strategies are conducive to well-being only when used in appropriate contexts. This study is the first to test the strategy-situation-fit hypothesis using ecological momentary assessment of cognitive reappraisal-a putatively adaptive strategy. We expected people who used reappraisal more in uncontrollable situations and less in controllable situations to have greater well-being than people with the opposite pattern of reappraisal use. Healthy participants ( n = 74) completed measures of well-being in the lab and used a smartphone app to report their use of reappraisal and perceived controllability of their environment 10 times a day for 1 week. Results supported the strategy-situation-fit hypothesis. Participants with relatively high well-being used reappraisal more in situations they perceived as lower in controllability and less in situations they perceived as higher in controllability. In contrast, we found little evidence for an association between greater well-being and greater mean use of reappraisal across situations.