4.6 Article

Post-movement beta synchronization in subjects presenting with sensory deafferentation

Journal

CLINICAL NEUROPHYSIOLOGY
Volume 119, Issue 6, Pages 1335-1345

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinph.2008.02.020

Keywords

event-related beta synchronization; post-movement beta synchronization; afferent inputs; sensitive deafferentation; neuropathic pain

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: We studied the time course and location of post-movement beta synchronization (PMBS) in patients presenting with sensory deafferentation, in order to assess the hypothetical relationship between the PMBS and the cortical processing of movement-related somatosensory afferent inputs. Methods: We used the event-related synchronization (ERS) method. EEG activity was recorded (via a 128-electrode system) during brisk, unilateral right and left index finger extension by 10 patients presenting with neuropathic pain related to sensory deafferentation. Intra- and post-movement changes in beta source power were calculated relative to pre-movement baseline activity. We compared the PMBS results for the painful and non-painful body sides. Furthermore, PMBS patterns in patients were compared with those in nine healthy volunteers. Results: PMBS pattern related to the painful side had a spatial distribution, with an ipsilateral preponderance, significantly more restricted than PMBS pattern on the non-painful side and in the control group. There were no significant differences between patient PMBS patterns on the non-painful side and those in the control group. Conclusions: Sensory deafferentation disrupts normal PMBS patterns. Significance: This work provides additional arguments to the hypothesis supporting that the PMBS is influenced by movement-related somatosensory input processing. (c) 2008 International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. Published by 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

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available