4.6 Article

Cerebellar Stimulation Fails to Modulate Motor Cortex Plasticity in Writing Dystonia

Journal

MOVEMENT DISORDERS
Volume 29, Issue 10, Pages 1304-1307

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/mds.25881

Keywords

writing dystonia; writers' cramp; plasticity; cerebellum; cerebellar stimulation

Funding

  1. Guarantors of Brain Clinical Fellowship Scheme
  2. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Primary dystonia is characterized neuro-physiologically by reduced inhibitory mechanisms and abnormal regulation of plasticity responses. The potential of anodal cerebellar transcranial direct current stimulation as a therapeutic tool in writing dystonia was examined, after the observation that cerebellar stimulation reduces responses to an associative plasticity protocol in healthy subjects. Methods: Ten patients with writing dystonia completed a two-part study (sham and anodal) in which cerebellar stimulation was given simultaneously with paired associative stimulation. Electrophysiological and clinical parameters were measured before and after stimulation. Results: Clinical symptoms were unchanged by cerebellar stimulation. Patients exhibited much variability in the size and direction of their plasticity responses. Excessive or topographically abnormal plasticity responses were not observed. In the subgroup of patients with facilitatory responses to paired associative stimulation in the sham condition, anodal cerebellar stimulation retained its ability to reduce the magnitude of plasticity response. Conclusions: Our limited understanding of intersubject variability of plasticity responses in writing dystonia currently undermines cerebellar stimulation as a novel treatment in this subset of dystonia. Cerebellar stimulation may be beneficial in other neurological disorders with consistently exaggerated plasticity. (C) 2014 International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available