4.7 Review

The role of dopamine in action control: Insights from medication effects in Parkinson's disease

期刊

NEUROSCIENCE AND BIOBEHAVIORAL REVIEWS
卷 127, 期 -, 页码 158-170

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2021.04.023

关键词

Action control; Dopamine; Motor function; Striatal pathways; Parkinson's disease

资金

  1. Ghent University Special Research Fund [BOF 15/PDO/135]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Dopamine plays a specific role in action control in Parkinson's disease patients, with the expression of medication effects depending on patient characteristics and the experimental tasks used. Future research should employ multi-method approaches and within-subject comparisons to investigate the effects of dopamine on different action control components and underlying striatal pathways.
Parkinson's disease (PD) is a neurological disorder associated primarily with overt motor symptoms. Several studies show that PD is additionally accompanied by impairments in covert cognitive processes underlying goaldirected motor functioning (e.g., action planning, conflict adaptation, inhibition), and that dopaminergic medication may modulate these action control components. In this review we aim to leverage findings from studies in this domain to elucidate the role of dopamine (DA) in action control. A qualitative review of studies that investigated the effects of medication status (on vs. off) on action control in PD suggests a componentspecific role for DA in action control, although the expression of medication effects depends on characteristics of both the patients and experimental tasks used to measure action control. We discuss these results in the light of findings from other research lines examining the role of DA in action control (e.g., animal research, pharmacology), and recommend that future studies use multi-method, within-subject approaches to model DA effects on action control across different components as well as underlying striatal pathways (ventral vs. dorsal).

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