4.3 Article

Deficits in temporal processing correlate with clinical progression in Huntington's disease

期刊

ACTA NEUROLOGICA SCANDINAVICA
卷 136, 期 4, 页码 322-329

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ane.12728

关键词

dopamine; Huntington's disease; medium spiny neurons; timing and time perception

资金

  1. National University of Quilmes (UNQ)
  2. HD Lorena Scarafiocca Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

ObjectivesPrecise temporal performance is crucial for several complex tasks. Time estimation in the second-to-minutes rangeknown as interval timinginvolves the interaction of the basal ganglia and the prefrontal cortex via dopaminergic-glutamatergic pathways. Patients with Huntington's disease (HD) present deficits in cognitive and motor functions that require fine control of temporal processing. The objective of the present work was to assess temporal cognition through a peak-interval time (PI) production task in patients with HD and its potential correlation with the Unified Huntington's Disease Rating Scale (UHDRS). Materials and methodsPatients with molecular diagnosis of HD and controls matched by age, sex and educational level (n=18/group) were tested for interval timing in short- (3seconds), medium- (6seconds) and long (12seconds)-duration stimuli. ResultsSignificant differences were observed in the PI task, with worse performance in HD compared to controls. Patients underestimated real time (left-shifted Peak location) for 6- and 12-second intervals (P<.05) and presented decreased temporal precision for all the intervals evaluated (P<.01). Importantly, a significant correlation was found between time performance and the UHDRS (P<.01). Patients' responses also deviated from the scalar property. ConclusionsOur results contribute to support that timing functions are impaired in HD in correlation with clinical deterioration. Recordings of cognitive performance related to timing could be a potential useful tool to measure the neurodegenerative progression of movement disorder-related pathologies.

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

4.3
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