4.6 Review

New perspectives on the pathophysiology of Parkinson's disease as assessed by saccade performance: A clinical review

期刊

CLINICAL NEUROPHYSIOLOGY
卷 124, 期 8, 页码 1491-1506

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinph.2013.01.021

关键词

Saccade; Basal ganglia; Parkinson's disease; Superior colliculus; Substantia nigra; Inhibition

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology of Japan
  2. Magnetic Health Science Foundation
  3. Kato Memorial Trust for Nambyo Research, Japan

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We reviewed basal ganglia (BG) dysfunction in Parkinson's disease (PD) based on recent findings on saccade performance. Hypometria in all saccade paradigms and impaired initiation of internally triggered saccades such as memory guided saccades (MGS) are reported, whereas visually guided saccades (VGS) are relatively spared, although they are also mildly affected. The ability to inhibit unwanted saccades is also impaired. We propose that three major drives converges on SC to determine the saccade abnormalities. The impairment in VGS may be caused by the excessive inhibition of SC due to the increased BG output, whereas for MGS, decreased activity of the frontal cortex-BG circuit may also be involved. The impaired suppression of unwanted saccades may result from the leaky inhibition of SC. When PD patients inspect pictures, they end up exploring a smaller area of them with smaller saccades compared to normal subjects. Levodopa slightly prolongs VGS latency and shortens MGS latency, by altering the balance between the direct and indirect pathways of the BG circuit. In contrast, deep brain stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus improves saccade hypometria in both VGS and MGS, presumably by acting relatively directly on the SC-substantia nigra pars reticulata pathway to remove the excessive SC inhibition. (C) 2013 International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

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