4.7 Article

Stimulation of the subthalamic region at 20 Hz slows the development of grip force in Parkinson's disease

期刊

EXPERIMENTAL NEUROLOGY
卷 231, 期 1, 页码 91-96

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.expneurol.2011.05.018

关键词

Parkinson's disease; Deep brain stimulation; Beta activity; Basal ganglia; Grip force

资金

  1. National Science Council Taiwan [NSC98-2314-B-182A-073-MY3, NSC 99-2911-I-182A-002]
  2. Chang Gung Memorial Hospital [CMRPG370743, CMRPG300101]
  3. Tosetrees Trust
  4. Medical Research Council
  5. MRC [G0901503] Funding Source: UKRI
  6. Medical Research Council [G0901503] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Excessive synchronization of basal ganglia neuronal activity at similar to 20 Hz is characteristic of patients with untreated Parkinson's disease (PD). Correlative evidence suggests that this activity may contribute to bradykinesia. Attempts to demonstrate causality through stimulation imposed synchronization at 20 Hz in the region of the subthalamic nucleus (STN) have had limited success. Finger-tapping is slowed by about 8% and only in those PD patients that have a relatively normal baseline performance in this task. Here we investigate whether greater performance decrements might be seen in a reaction time grip task. We studied 32 sides in 16 patients with PD after overnight withdrawal of medication. Patients were asked to grip as hard and as fast as possible without STN stimulation and during bilateral stimulation at 5 Hz, 10 Hz, 20 Hz, 50 Hz and 130 Hz. Stimulation at 20 Hz slowed the development of force by 14.7 +/- 8.3% (P=0.044) across all patients. Slowing increased by 22 +/- 7% (P=0.005) in those patients with the best performance in the task without stimulation. The effect was frequency specific. These data provide direct interventional evidence of a mechanistic link between excessive neuronal synchronization in the beta range and motor impairment in PD. (C) 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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