4.6 Article

Perseveration and Choice in Parkinson's Disease: The Impact of Progressive Frontostriatal Dysfunction on Action Decisions

期刊

CEREBRAL CORTEX
卷 23, 期 7, 页码 1572-1581

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/cercor/bhs144

关键词

Action-selection; Caudate; fMRI; Ventrolateral prefrontal cortex; U-shaped function

资金

  1. Wellcome Trust [088324]
  2. Medical Research Council Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit [MC_US_A060_0016]
  3. NIHR Cambridge Comprehensive Biomedical Research Centre
  4. MRC [G0800784, MC_U105597119] Funding Source: UKRI
  5. Medical Research Council [G0800784, G1000183B, G0001354, G0001354B, MC_U105597119, G0800784B] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We have previously shown that patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) perseverate in their choice of action relative to healthy controls, and that this is affected by dopaminergic medication (Hughes LE, Barker RA, Owen AM, Rowe JB. 2010. Parkinson's disease and healthy aging: Independent and interacting effects on action selection. Hum Brain Mapp. 31:1886-1899). To understand further the neural basis of these phenomena, we used a new task that manipulated the options to repeat responses. Seventeen patients with idiopathic PD were studied both on and off dopaminergic medication and 18 healthy adults were scanned twice as controls. All subjects performed a right-handed 3-choice button press task, which controlled the availability of repeatable responses. The frequency of choosing to repeat a response (a form of perseveration) in patients was related to dopamine therapy and disease severity as a U-shaped function. For repetitive trials, this U-shaped relationship was also reflected in the BOLD response in the caudate nuclei and ventrolateral prefrontal cortex. Our results support a U-shaped model of optimized cortico-striatal circuit function and clearly demonstrate that flexibility in response choice is modulated by an interaction of dopamine and disease severity.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据