4.7 Article

Motor inhibition in hysterical conversion paralysis

期刊

NEUROIMAGE
卷 47, 期 3, 页码 1026-1037

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.05.023

关键词

Inhibition; Conversion paralysis; Go-nogo; Precuneus; vmPFC; Connectivity

资金

  1. Cogito Foundation
  2. Ernest-Boninchi Foundation
  3. Academic Society of Geneva

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Brain mechanisms underlying hysterical conversion symptoms are still poorly known. Recent hypotheses Suggested that activation of motor pathways might be suppressed by inhibitory signals based on particular emotional Situations. To assess motor and inhibitory brain circuits during conversion paralysis, we designed a go-nogo task while a patient underwent functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Preparatory activation arose in right motor cortex despite left paralysis, indicating preserved motor intentions, but with concomitant increases in vmPFC regions that normally mediate motivational and affective processing. Failure to execute movement on go trials with the affected left hand was associated with activations in precuneus and ventrolateral frontal gyrus. However, right frontal areas normally subserving inhibition were activated by nogo trials for the right (normal) hand, but not during go trials for the left hand (affected by conversion paralysis). By contrast, a group of healthy controls who were asked to feign paralysis showed similar activation on nogo trials and left-go trials with Simulated weakness, suggesting that distinct inhibitory mechanisms are implicated in Simulation and conversion paralysis. In the patient, right Motor cortex also showed enhanced functional connectivity with the posterior cingulate cortex, precuneus, and vmPFC. These results suggest that conversion symptoms do not act through cognitive inhibitory circuits, but involve selective activations in midline brain regions associated with self-related representations and emotion regulation. (C) 2009 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