4.7 Article

Basal Ganglia Hypoactivity During Grip Force in Drug Naive Parkinson's Disease

期刊

HUMAN BRAIN MAPPING
卷 31, 期 12, 页码 1928-1941

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/hbm.20987

关键词

fMRI; Parkinson's disease; force

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [R01-NS-52318, R01-NS-58487, R01-NS-40902, R01-NS-28127]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The basal ganglia (BG) are impaired in Parkinson's disease (PD), but it remains unclear which nuclei are impaired during the performance of motor tasks in early-stage PD. Therefore, this study was conducted to determine which nuclei function abnormally, and whether cortical structures are also affected by early-stage PD. The study also determined if cerebellar hyperactivity is found early in the course of PD. Blood oxygenation level dependent activation was compared between 14 early-stage drug-naive PD patients and 14 controls performing two precision grip force tasks using functional magnetic resonance imaging at 3 T. The grip tasks used in this study were chosen because both tasks are known to provide robust activation in BG nuclei, and the two tasks were similar except that the 2-s task required more switching between contraction and relaxation than the 4-s task. The 4-s task revealed that PD patients were hypoactive relative to controls only in putamen and external globus pallidus, and thalamus. In the 2-s task, PD patients were hypoactive throughout all BG nuclei, thalamus, M1, and supplementary motor area. There were no differences in cerebellar activation between groups during either task. Regions of interest analysis revealed that the hypoactivity observed in PD patients during the 2-s task became more pronounced over time as patients performed the task. This suggests that a motor task that requires switching can accentuate abnormal activity throughout all BG nuclei of early-stage, drug-naive PD, and that the abnormal activity becomes more pronounced with repeated task performance in these patients. Hum Brain Mapp 31:1928-1941, 2010. (C) 2010 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

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