4.6 Article

Normalizing Motor Cortex Representations in Focal Hand Dystonia

期刊

CEREBRAL CORTEX
卷 19, 期 9, 页码 1968-1977

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/cercor/bhn224

关键词

afferent stimulation; cortical reorganization; motor cortex; musician's dystonia; writer's cramp

资金

  1. National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia [ID 349498, ID519313]
  2. Australian Physiotherapy Research Foundation [S07-001]
  3. Australian Postgraduate Award
  4. Healthy Ageing Research Cluster scholarship
  5. University of Adelaide

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Task-specific focal dystonia is thought to have a neurological basis where stereotypical synchronous inputs and maladaptive plasticity play a role. As afferent input is a powerful driver of cortical reorganization, we propose that a period of asynchronous afferent stimulation may reverse maladaptive cortical changes and alleviate symptoms. Using transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), 3 hand muscles were mapped in 10 dystonics and 10 healthy controls. Mapping occurred before and after 1 h of nonassociative stimulation (NAS) to first dorsal interosseous (FDI) and abductor pollicis brevis (APB). Participants performed grip lift, handwriting, and cyclic drawing before and after NAS. Prior to NAS, dystonics had larger maps, and the centers of gravity (CoGs) of the FDI and APB maps were closer together. Dystonics demonstrated impairments in grip-lift, handwriting, and cyclic drawing tasks. Following NAS, map size was reduced in all muscles in dystonic participants and FDI and APB CoGs moved further apart. Among dystonics, NAS produced a reduction in movement variability during cyclic drawing. Thus, 1 h of NAS can reduce the magnitude, and increase the separation, of TMS representational maps. We suggest that these changes reflect some normalization of the representational abnormalities seen in focal dystonia and provide initial, limited evidence that such changes are associated with improvements in circle drawing.

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