4.5 Article

Functional anatomy of outcome evaluation during Iowa Gambling Task performance in patients with Parkinson's disease: an fMRI study

期刊

NEUROLOGICAL SCIENCES
卷 34, 期 12, 页码 2159-2166

出版社

SPRINGER-VERLAG ITALIA SRL
DOI: 10.1007/s10072-013-1439-0

关键词

Parkinson's disease; Iowa Gambling Task; Decision-making; Dopamine; fMRI; Psychophysiological interactions

资金

  1. project CEITEC Central European Institute of Technology from the European Regional Development Fund [CZ.1.05/1.1.00/02.0068]
  2. Czech Science Foundation [P407/12/2432]
  3. European Regional Development Fund Project FNUSA-ICRC [CZ.1.05/1.1.00/02.0123]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this study was to investigate the functional anatomy of decision-making during the Iowa Gambling Task in patients with Parkinson's disease. We used event-related functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) during a computerized version of IGT to compare 18 PD patients on dopaminergic medication in the ON state and 18 healthy control subjects. Our analyses focused on outcome evaluation following card selection, because we expected this aspect of decision-making to be impaired in PD patients. The PD patients exhibited lower activation of the left putamen than the control group as a reaction to penalty. Using psychophysiological interaction analysis, we identified decreased functional connectivity between the right globus pallidus internus and the left anterior cingulate gyrus in the PD group. In contrast, increased connectivity between these structures was observed after penalty in the control group. Our results suggest altered functioning of the basal ganglia and their connections with the cortical structures involved in the limbic loop (e.g., the limbic fronto-striatal circuit of the basal ganglia) during decision-making in PD patients. Differences in the response to loss could be associated with insufficient negative reinforcement after a loss in PD patients in the ON state in comparison to a healthy population.

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

4.5
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