Movement preparation in Parkinson's disease Time course and distribution of movement-related potentials in a movement precueing task

P. Praamstra, A. S. Meyer, A. R. Cools, M. W. I. M. Horstink, D. F. Stegeman
1996 Brain  
Investigations of the effects of advance information on movement preparation in Parkinson s disease using reaction time ( RT) measures have yielded contradictory results. In order to obtain direct information regarding the time course of movement preparation, we combined RT measurements in a movement precueing task with multi-channel recordings of movement-related potentials in the present study. Movements of the index and middle fingers of the left and right hand were either precued or not by
more » ... precued or not by advance information regarding the side (left or right hand) of the required response. Reaction times were slower for patients than for control subjects. Both groups benefited equally from informative precues, indicating that patients utilized the advance information as effectively as control subjects. Lateralization of the movement-preceding cerebral activity [i.e. the lateralized readiness potential ( LRP)] confirmed that patients used the available partial Correspondence to: P. Praamstra, Institute information to prepare their responses and started this process no later than controls. In conjunction with EMG onset times, the LRP onset measures allowed for a fractionation of the RTs, which provided clues to the stages where the slowness of Parkinson s disease patients might arise. No definite abnormalities of temporal parameters were found, but differences in the distribution of the lateralized movementpreceding activity between patients and controls suggested differences in the cortical organization of movement preparation. Differences in amplitude of the contingent negative variation (CNV) and differences in the way in which the CNV was modulated by the information given by the precue pointed in the same direction. A difference in amplitude of the P300 between patients and controls suggested that preprogramming a response req~ired more effort from patients than from control subjects.
doi:10.1093/brain/119.5.1689 pmid:8931590 fatcat:2uaivdebazb6fimoybbkmx4ew4