ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026
Good recovery is not full recovery: emotion recognition deficits and different regulation strategies in mild right-hemisphere ischemic stroke survivors.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Mild right-hemisphere ischemic stroke can affect socioemotional functioning even in patients with excellent functional recovery, yet facial emotion identification and habitual emotion regulation remain undercharacterized in this population. This study examined both domains in stroke survivors with little-to-no residual disability compared to healthy controls. Methods: Fifty-three mild right-hemisphere ischemic stroke survivors (modified Rankin Scale < 2; chronic phase, 12-24 months post-stroke) and 60 neurologically healthy controls completed a 24-item forced-choice identification task covering six basic emotions and the Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ). Group differences and the associations between regulation and recognition were examined with repeated-measures ANOVA and ANCOVA, including general cognitive status (MoCA) and ERQ indices as covariates. Results: In the unadjusted model, stroke participants showed lower overall accuracy and a significant Emotion × Group interaction, with the clearest group differences for anger, disgust, and fear. The stroke group also reported markedly higher expressive suppression and lower cognitive reappraisal. When MoCA was included as the sole covariate, the between-subjects group effect on overall accuracy was no longer significant, indicating that the global accuracy decrement is substantially tied to the mild cognitive sequelae of right-hemisphere stroke; however, the Emotion × Group interaction retained significance with an identical effect size, becoming non-significant only in the extended model that simultaneously controlled for both MoCA and ERQ indices. Expressive suppression showed a significant emotion-dependent association with recognition accuracy after adjustment for both ERQ and MoCA, whereas reappraisal did not. Formal ANCOVAs confirmed that regulation differences were not accounted for by cognitive status. Discussion: These findings reveal a functional dissociation: the overall level of facial emotion identification is sensitive to general cognitive integrity, whereas habitual emotion regulation represents a higher-order, cognitively independent dimension of socioemotional functioning that is robustly and independently affected by mild stroke. The results argue for dedicated socioemotional assessment - and particularly regulation-focused characterization - in well-recovered stroke survivors, and motivate future work linking these profiles to lesion mechanisms and targeted interventions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.