4.4 Article

Tactile/proprioceptive integration during arm localization is intact in individuals with Parkinson's disease

Journal

NEUROSCIENCE LETTERS
Volume 470, Issue 1, Pages 38-42

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neulet.2009.12.051

Keywords

Parkinson's disease; Proprioception; Touch; Sensory integration

Categories

Funding

  1. NIH [F-32HD042929-02]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

It has been theorized that sensorimotor processing deficits underlie Parkinson's disease (PD) motor impairments including movement under proprioceptive control. However, it is possible that these sensorimotor processing deficits exclude tactile/proprioception sensorimotor integration: prior studies show improved movement accuracy in PD with endpoint tactile feedback, and good control in tactile-driven precision-grip tasks. To determine whether tactile/proprioceptive integration in particular is affected by PD, nine subjects with PD, (off-medication, UPDRS motor = 19-42) performed an arm-matching task. without visual feedback. In some trials one arm touched a static tactile cue that conflicted with dynamic proprioceptive feedback from biceps brachii muscle vibration. This sensory conflict paradigm has characterized tactile/proprioceptive integration in healthy subjects as specific to the context of tactile cue mobility assumptions and the intention to move the arm. We found that the individuals with PD had poorer arm-matching acuracy than age-matched control subjects. However, PD-group accuracy improved with tactile feedback. Furthermore, sensory conflict conditions were resolved in the same context-dependent fashion by both subject groups. We conclude that the somatosensory integration mechanism for prioritizing tactile and proprioception feedback in this task are not disrupted by PD, and are not related to the observed proprioceptive deficits. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available