4.6 Article

Freezing of Gait in Parkinson Disease Is Associated With Impaired Conflict Resolution

期刊

NEUROREHABILITATION AND NEURAL REPAIR
卷 25, 期 8, 页码 765-773

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/1545968311403493

关键词

Parkinson disease; freezing of gait; conflict resolution

资金

  1. Flanders Research Funds [G.0691.08]
  2. Research Council of the Vrije Universiteit Brussel [OZR-1933 BOF]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Freezing of gait (FOG) in Parkinson disease (PD) may involve executive dysfunction. This study examined whether executive functioning and attention are more affected in patients with FOG compared with those without and determined whether these processes are influenced by anti-Parkinson medication. Methods. A total of 11 PD patients with FOG, 11 without FOG, and 10 healthy control subjects, matched for age, gender, and education, participated. General motor, mental and cognitive screening tests, as well as specific neuropsychological assessment of executive functions and the Attention Network Test (ANT) were administered. The ANT was conducted in both ON and OFF phases in a counterbalanced design to determine medication-specific effects. Results. FOG showed a clear association with impairment in the executive control network for conflict resolution (inhibition of unwanted responses and impaired response selection), compared with nonfreezers and healthy controls, F(2, 28) = 5.41, P = .01. Orienting and alerting function did not differ between groups, F < 1. Other executive functions, such as abstract problem solving and mental flexibility were not associated with FOG (P > .10). Anti-Parkinson medication did not ameliorate conflict resolution (P > .10), although orienting attention improved with medication, F(1, 17) = 9.81, P < .01. Conclusions. This study shows an association between impaired conflict resolution and FOG, important in understanding the interplay between cognitive and motor problems, which can lead to specific rehabilitation strategies.

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

4.6
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