Cross-sectional study reveals diminished emotional pleasure, arousal, and dominance in post-stroke motor aphasia, highlighting the need for tailored emotional support in rehabilitation.
Background Stroke frequently induces aphasia, which severely impairs communication and elevates the risk of emotional distress. Effective non-verbal emotional assessment is crucial for this population. This study aimed to investigate the emotional experiences and their associated factors in patients with post-stroke motor aphasia. Methods In this cross-sectional study, 109 patients with post-stroke motor aphasia were conveniently sampled from two tertiary hospitals. Emotional experiences (pleasure, arousal, dominance) were assessed using the non-verbal Self-Assessment Manikin (SAM). Disease severity was measured with the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS). Demographic, clinical, and socioeconomic data were collected. Univariate analyses and multiple linear regression were used to identify associated factors. Results Mean scores for pleasure (4.17 ± 2.32), arousal (3.99 ± 2.85), and dominance (4.97 ± 2.93) were all below the median. Pleasure and arousal showed an “L” shaped trend; pleasure and dominance showed a roughly diagonal synchronous trend; dominance and arousal showed a “swallow-dive” trend. Payment method, family income, NIHSS score, and personality were significantly associated with all three dimensions ( P < 0.05), whereas caregiver type was associated only with dominance. Regression models explained 69.6%, 61.1%, and 60.5% of the variance in pleasure, personality, disease severity, and income for dominance; and personality and disease severity for arousal. Conclusion Patients with post-stroke motor aphasia report medium-low emotional levels across all dimensions. Personality traits, stroke severity, and family income are key factors associated with emotional outcomes; personality traits and stroke severity function as predictive/risk factors, whereas family income represents a modifiable socioeconomic target, together highlighting the need for risk-stratified, personalized emotional interventions in rehabilitation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: