Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Objective

Movement dysfunction in Parkinson’s disease (PD) is well documented but its cause remains unclear. This study examined whether motor symptoms are caused by sensory impairment, executive dysfunction or other factors.

Methods

We examined the integration of tactile and motor programmes using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) in early stage PD patients compared with neurologically normal controls, to investigate neural mechanisms underlying movement dysfunction.

Results

Twenty-two control participants exhibited activation in an extensive network of cortical regions involved in tactile–motor integration. Decreased activation in somatosensory and motor regions during performance of passive tactile and movement tasks was found in 21 PD patients. The extrastriate visual cortex exhibited greater activation in controls during performance of the tasks. In contrast, greater activation in bilateral prefrontal regions was found in PD patients.

Conclusions

These results indicate that the extrastriate visual cortex is a multisensory region playing an important role in sensorimotor integration. The findings suggest that PD patients exhibit decreased activation in the extrastriate visual cortex, possibly related to dysfunctional integrative processing, and compensatory activity in the prefrontal cortex.

Keywords

Parkinson’s disease movement sensorimotor integration visual cortex multisensory processing

Introduction

Parkinson’s disease (PD) is a progressive neurological disorder characterized by tremor, rigidity and slowness of movement; it is associated with progressive neuronal loss of the substantia nigra and other brain structures.¹ Movement symptoms involved in PD may be caused by interference of motor programme execution, which results from dysfunctional basal ganglia motor cortex circuits and abnormalities in peripheral afferent inputs or central processing.^2,3 The successful execution of a voluntary movement critically depends on peripheral sensory feedback. Sensorimotor integration is the process by which sensory input is integrated by the central nervous system (CNS) and then used to assist in motor programme execution.⁴ Compared with neurologically normal people, patients with PD are more reliant on external sensory information for motor initiation and execution, suggesting that impaired proprioception may play a role in PD symptomatology.⁵

Abbruzzese and Berardelli⁵ proposed that some types of movement disorder are characterized by a lack of inhibition at multiple levels of the CNS and by defective sensorimotor organization.⁶ In addition, it has been demonstrated that patients with PD, especially those with early stage disease, exhibit severely depressed frontal responsiveness to sensory stimuli, as tested with sensory evoked potentials.⁷ Forss and Jousmäki proposed that the secondary somatosensory cortices are also important in sensorimotor integration.⁸ An increasing body of evidence indicates that, compared with neurologically normal people, in patients with PD, the supplementary motor area (SMA) commonly exhibits hypoactivation, whereas other cortical motor regions (such as the cerebellum, premotor area [PMA] and parietal cortex) exhibit hyperactivation while performing motor tasks.^9,10

A fundamental question in motor research is how motor planning operations and sensory feedback are implemented in the human brain.¹¹ Studies have indicated that several separate sensory systems are involved in motor planning, including the haptic, visual and auditory systems.^11,12 To prepare for and accomplish an action successfully, information from these systems must somehow be integrated. For people with PD, a deficiency may exist in the sensory–motor integration process,¹² and the prefrontal lobe may constitute the neural substrate of this dysfunction.¹³ Lack of a definite correlation with clinical features means that it remains unclear whether abnormalities of sensorimotor integration play a major role in the development of akinesia.

We used multitask functional (f) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to investigate which brain regions are involved in the integration of tactile–motor information, and to determine whether activity in these regions differs when patients with early PD are compared with normal controls.

Patients and methods

Participants

This study was carried out at The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China between July 2007 and September 2012. All procedures were approved by the Institutional Review Board of Zhejiang University. All participants gave written informed consent before taking part in the study.

The diagnosis of early PD was made by X.Z., an experienced neurologist, based on medical history, standard physical and neurological examinations, response to standard levodopa or dopaminergic therapy, laboratory tests and MRI scans to exclude other diseases. Patients were examined only after their medication had been withdrawn for ≥15 h. Patients were assessed using the Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale,¹⁴ the Hoehn and Yahr disability scale¹⁵ and the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) while they were off medication.

Patients with Hoehn and Yahr¹⁵ stages 1 or 2 PD were eligible for study inclusion. These early PD patients, selected by the neurologist in the outpatient department, were asked whether they wanted to participate in this study. After patients signed the informed consent forms, they had to agree to routine MRI scanning of brain to rule out any other abnormal conditions. All patients were recruited from the First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University. Neurologically normal subjects participated in this study as controls. All of the healthy volunteers were from Zhejiang Province, China, and were recruited over the internet. They were matched with the patients for age and sex. Control subjects were aged between 30 and 75 years, had no history of neurological or psychiatric disorders and were screened for dementia and depression using the MMSE before study entry, as well as undergoing routine MRI scanning of the brain to exclude any abnormalities. All participants were right-handed, as assessed by the Edinburgh handedness inventory.¹⁶

Study design

The multitask paradigm included tactile stimulation, right-hand motor tasks and tactile–motor integration tasks, described below. These tasks were presented in the following order: passive tactile stimulation task; motor task; integration task. Each task unit consisted of a 30-s performance period followed by a 30-s rest (control) period (Figure 1(a)). There were three epochs, with a total testing period of 4.5 min and a 5-min control period. The total fMRI time for 19 blocks was 9.5 min. All participants were fully trained on how to perform the tasks before the scanning session. During practice, errors were recorded and feedback was provided, to inform participants whether their finger movements were correct or incorrect. Training continued until all participants performed all tasks correctly.

Figure 1.

(a) Schematic representation of the tasks procedure in a study to investigate neural mechanisms underlying movement dysfunction, using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) in early stage Parkinson’s disease (PD) patients compared with neurologically normal controls. The cycle was repeated three times. (b) Tasks cue display seen by participants during three tasks.

Passive tactile stimulation task

The stimuli in this task consisted of two commercially available, round wooden wheels: one had a smooth rim; the other had a serrated rim. Both wheels were 2.80 cm in diameter and 1.20 cm thick. A block design paradigm was used in which tactile stimulation was applied in some blocks. The duration of blocks was 30 s. During this stimulation task, an experimenter manually applied the two tactile stimuli (smooth or serrated) by rolling one of the wheels over the participant’s right index fingerpad. The stimulation was applied for 2 s per trial, with a 1-s interval, rolling the wheel in a fixed orientation. The stimuli were alternated in a pseudorandom order, i.e. the order of stimuli seems to be random, but in fact it was set in advance by the experimenter, with the aim of obtaining a genuine response. There were 10 trials within each block and participants were never allowed to see the stimuli.

Motor task

The procedure for this initiative motor task was the same as that for the tactile task, except that a standard finger tapping movement replaced the tactile task. Subjects tapped their own fingers using the thumb and index fingers, during simultaneous fixation on visual cues.

Tactile–motor integration task

During the tactile–motor task, an experimenter manually applied the wheel stimulus to the participant’s right index fingerpad for 2 s per trial, alternating in a pseudorandom order. Participants were instructed to do nothing if they felt the smooth rim, and to tap the thumb and index fingers once if they felt the serrated rim.

fMRI procedure

Participants were scanned using a 1.5T GE Signa EXCITE MRI scanner (GE Healthcare, Milwaukee, WI, USA) with an 8-channel head coil. Each scanning session began with a high-resolution T1-weighted three-dimensional volume acquisition for anatomical localization (voxel size, 1 × 1 × 1 mm³). This was followed by acquisitions of echoplanar T2*-weighted images with blood oxygenation level-dependent (BOLD) contrast (echo time, 35 ms; flip angle, 90°). A total of 190 volumes were acquired per fMRI session. Each volume contained 22 slices of 5 mm thickness (matrix size, 64 × 64 pixels; voxel size, 2.35 × 2.35 × 7 mm³).

Participants lay supine in the scanner with the right arm extended and the right hand supinated. The arm was comfortably supported by foam padding, which also functioned to minimize the transfer of gradient coil vibration to the upper extremity. Foam blocks, as well as chin and forehead straps, were used to reduce head movement. Earplugs were worn to protect the participant’s hearing.

Using the block design paradigm described above, each functional run contained 19 stimulation blocks, each with a duration of 30 s. Nine experimental and 10 control blocks were presented in an alternating order (Figure 1(a)). Each stimulation block contained 10 3-s trials. Thus, there were 30 trials for each condition per run.

Two conditions were contained in each scanning session: these were defined as the ‘rest’ and ‘task’ conditions. Each condition lasted 30 s and was repeated three times in each session. In the rest condition, participants were instructed to relax and focus on the screen in front of them. When participants performed tasks they were also instructed to focus on the screen. Immediately before each block, participants were presented with a visual cue with a black background, on the screen. The sequence and timing of stimuli were guided by preprogrammed instructions, displayed to the participants and experimenter on a computer screen using E-prime software (Psychology Software Tools, Sharpsburg, MD, USA). All stimulus cues were projected on a screen positioned outside the scanner at a distance of 2 m from the gantry (Figure 1(b)). Participants viewed the projected screen via a mirror mounted on the head coil. During scanning, no feedback was provided to communicate to participants whether their finger movements were correct or incorrect.

Imaging and statistical analyses

The BOLD signal obtained during performance of tactile, movement and tactile–movement integration trials was compared with that obtained during the corresponding period in the control condition. Intergroup analyses were also conducted.

Image analyses were performed with SPM2 software (Wellcome Institute of Cognitive Neurology, London, UK). Functional images were aligned to the first image of each session using a rigid-body transformation procedure. After spatial normalization, images were then transformed into Talairach space¹⁷ and smoothed with a 7-mm full-width at half maximum Gaussian filter. First- and second-level analyses were performed. In the first-level, data were analysed for each participant separately on a voxel-by-voxel basis using the principles of the general linear model, extended to allow the analysis of fMRI data as a time series.¹⁸For within-group analyses, a one-sample t-test model was used to identify the brain activity associated with each task (P < 0.001, without correction for multiple comparisons), using a cluster size >20 voxels as a spatial extent threshold. As this step is dependent on the amplitude of head movements, all data in which the head movement was over 5 voxels were abandoned, to avoid the need for corrections that may indeed give a false activation. This procedure has been performed by others.^19,20

For intergroup comparisons, two-sample t-tests (P < 0.05, uncorrected) were used to explore the differences between PD patients and normal controls during each task. Locations of activated areas for different conditions were displayed by superimposing them on the Montreal Neurological Institute (MNI) template using SPM2. All co-ordinates were reported in Talairach space converted from MNI space, based on an algorithm (www.mrccbu.cam.ac.uk/imaging/mnispace.html). Specific areas within the cortex were identified as numbered Brodmann areas (BA).

In addition, age data were presented as mean ± SD.

Results

Participants

Twenty-one right-handed patients with Hoehn and Yahr stage 1 or 2 PD (11 female, 10 male; age range, 43–81 years, mean age 60.43 ± 9.65) were included. Twenty-two neurologically normal subjects (11 female, 11 male; age range 42–75 years, mean age 59.23 ± 11.12) also participated in this study as controls. Baseline demographic and illness characteristics for the PD group are shown in Table 1.

Table 1.

Demographic and clinicopathological characteristics of people with early stage Parkinson’s disease (PD) (Hoehn and Yahr [H&Y] stages 1 and 2),¹⁵ included in a study to investigate the neural mechanisms underlying movement dysfunction using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) in early PD patients and controls.

Patient	Sex	Age, y	Disease duration, y	UPDRS off medication	H&Y off medication	MMSE	Medication	Side most affected
1	M	48	3.0	25	1.5	30	LD, SLG, PRG	L
2	F	51	1.5	26	1	30	None	L
3	F	52	2.0	27	11	30	None	L
4	F	72	0.5	20	1.5	30	PMX	R
5	M	73	1.0	19	1	30	LD	R
6	M	74	0.5	22	11	30	LD, CAB	R
7	M	81	1.5	27	1.5	30	LD, PMX	L
8	M	66	2.0	20	1	30	PMX	R
9	F	62	2.0	18	1	30	PRG, SLG	L
10	F	61	0.5	19	1	30	PMX	L
11	M	57	2.0	17	1	30	LD, SLG, PRG	L
12	M	56	0.5	13	1	30	PMX	R
13	F	65	0.5	15	1	30	PMX	R
14	F	55	4.0	18	1	30	None	L
15	M	57	0.5	18	1	30	None	R
16	F	50	0.5	22	1	30	LD, CAB	R
17	M	68	3.0	20	1	30	PRG, SLG	R
18	F	64	6.0	24	1.5	30	LD, CAB	R
19	M	59	7.0	18	1	30	None	L
20	F	43	1.0	20	1	30	PMX	R
21	F	56	1.5	24	1.5	30	LD	L
Mean ± SD	60.43 ± 9.65

UPDRS, Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale,¹⁴ MMSE, Mini-Mental State Examination; F, female; M, male; CAB, cabergoline; LD, L-dopa; PMX, pramipexole; PRG, pergolide; SLG, selegiline.

Tactile tasks

In the control group, the tactile stimulus was associated with significantly increased activation in the bilateral somatosensory cortical areas, in BA 2 on the right and BA 40 on the left, relative to the resting condition (Table 2, Figure 2a). A number of visual regions – sometimes referred to as the middle temporal gyrus, V5^21–23 and the left occipital lobe (BA 17/18) – were also activated (Table 2). The cerebellum also exhibited activation increases (Table 2, Figure 2b).

Figure 2.

(a) Tactile activated map of neural mechanisms underlying movement dysfunction using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) in early stage Parkinson’s disease (PD) patients compared with neurologically normal controls. In controls, the higher activated area is the postcentral gyrus (arrows). Increased activation is also seen in the left middle temporal gyrus (curved arrow) and cerebellum (arrowhead). (b) Motor tasks activated map in controls and PD patients. In controls, higher activated areas include the right cerebellum, left somatosensory cortex (arrow), bilateral motor cortex (curved arrows) and right frontal gyrus (arrowhead). (c) Tactile-motor integrated tasks activated map in controls and PD patients. In controls, higher activated areas are the bilateral somatosensory cortex (arrows), left extrastriate visual cortex (arrowhead), and the right cerebellum (curved arrow). The colour version of this figure is available at: http://imr.sagepub.com.

Table 2.

Within-group analyses of activated brain areas receiving (A) tactile stimulus, (B) movement tasks and (C) and sensory-movement tasks in Parkinson’s disease (PD) patients and matched neurologically normal controls, included in a study to investigate neural mechanisms underlying movement dysfunction using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) in early stage PD (Hoehn and Yahr stages 1 and 2)¹⁵.

Parameter		Control subjects			PD patients
Anatomical area		x, y, z	t-test	Cluster	x, y, z	t-test	Cluster
A
Postcentral gyrus (2)	R	57, −18, 24	11.76	1110
Postcentral gyrus (40)	L	−60, −21, 21	11.14	1815	− 42, −27, 39	12.50	3350
Cerebellum	R	21, −54, −33	7.70	614	30, −72, −30	4.59	79
Inferior frontal gyrus (9)	L	−57, 9, 24	7.24	564
Middle temporal gyrus (MT/V5)	L	−60, −57, −6	6.66	587
Middle frontal gyrus (6/SMA)	L	−9, −3, 57	5.94	127
Occipital lobe (17,18)	L	−3, −99, −3	5.32	33
Thalamus	L	−15, −21, 3	5.29	25
Middle temporal gyrus (MT/V5)	R	63, −48, 6	9.08	1465
Middle frontal gyrus (6)	R	42, 9, 42	5.24	121
B
Cerebellum	R	18, −54, −30	9.86	1472	24, −54, −30	7.79	376
Precentral gyrus (4)	L	−33, −21, 51	9.66	2571	−39, −21, 60	8.12	629
Insula lobe	L	−39, 0, 9	6.25	1085
Postcentral gyrus (2,3)	R	57, −21,33	7.37	497
Precentral gyrus (6)	R	54, 3, 42	5.73	256
Middle frontal gyrus (10)	R	30, 45, 18	4.63	31
Caudate nucleus	R	21, 0, 21	5.48	47
C
Inferior parietal lobule (40)	L	−57, −27, 24	12.17	5481
Postcentral gyrus (2)	R	57, −18, 24	10.07	1558
Cerebellum	R	21, −54, −33	9.31	1579
Thalamus	L	−12, −21, 0	8.87	816
Middle temporal gyrus (19,37/MT/V5)	L	−51, −66, −6	6.73	178
Middle frontal gyurs (46)	L	−45, 36, 21	6.48	157	−36, 36, 27	4.66	41
Occipital lobe (18)	L	−3, −96, −9	5.87	94	0, −90, 18	7.47	44
Middle temporal gyrus (21/MT/V5)	R	54, −24, −6	4.46	58
Precentral gyrus (4)	L	−36, −24, 60	14.31	11064
Middle frontal gyrus (10,46)	R	42, 51, 6	5.47	69

Co‐ordinates given as stereotaxic co-ordinates referring to the atlas of Talairach and Tournoux.¹⁷

Cluster size is the number of voxels.

All areas were significant at P < 0.001 (one-sample t-test, uncorrected).

L, left; R, right

Intergroup comparisons showed greater activation in the control subjects compared with the PD patients in the bilateral somatosensory cortex (BA 1/3), parietal lobe (BA 7/31), left premotor cortex (BA 6), and right visual cortex (BA 19) (Table 3). In contrast, less activation was found in the bilateral frontal lobes (BA 9/10/47) of control subjects compared with PD patients (Table 3).

Table 3.

Intergroup comparisons between Parkinson’s disease (PD) patients and matched controls included in a study to investigate the neural mechanisms underlying movement dysfunction using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) in early stage PD (Hoehn and Yahr stages 1 and 2)¹⁵.

Parameter		Controls greater than PD patients			PD patients greater than controls
Anatomical area		x, y, z	t-test	Cluster	x, y, z	t-test	Cluster
Receiving tactile stimulus
Middle frontal gyrus (6)	L	−24, −6, 51	3.65	148	−36, 51, 9	2.32	23
Parietal lobe, precuneus (7)	L	−18, −48, 45	3.49	102
Parietal lobe, precuneus (31)	R	21, −54, 33	3.25	41
Middle occipital gyrus (19)	R	30, −78, 12	3.08	101
Middle cingulated cortex (24)	L	−13, −16, 45	3.06	22
Postcentral gyrus (1)	R	51, −24, 57	3.08	30
Postcentral gyrus (3)	L	2.98	33	45, 45, 12	3.31	216
Middle frontal gyrus (10)	R	38	−51, 30, −3	2.64	30
Inferior frontal gyrus (47)	L	39	−37, 27, 30	2.53	28
Dorsal-lateral prefrontal (9)	L	43	18, 12, −6	2.23	20
Putamen	R	32
Performing movement tasks	164
Anterior cingulated gyrus (32)	L	−9, 30, −6	3.03	29
Inferior temporal gyrus (20/IT)	R	40, −16, −20	2.93
Caudate nucleus	R	21, 15, 21	2.89
Occipital lobe (18)	R	21, −81, 3	2.08
Cingulated gyrus (24)	R	18, −15, 45	4.30	116
Thalamus	R	15, −12, 0	3.71	61
Parietal lobe, precuneus (7)	R	21, −48, 45	3.64	92
Cingulated gyrus (24)	L	−18, −18, 45	3.31	26
Middle frontal gyrus (9)	R	48, 33, 30	3.25	54
Frontal lobe (32)	R	12, 12, 39	2.97	35
Performing integrated tasks
Occipital lobe (19)	R	30, −57, 3	4.41
Occipital lobe (18)	R	18, −78, 0	3.99
Middle frontal gyrus (10)	R	39, 54, 3	1.75	12
Middle frontal gyrus (47)	L	−39, 30, −3	1.60	16

Co-ordinates given as stereotaxic co-ordinates, referring to the atlas of Talairach and Tournoux.¹⁷

Two-sample t-tests (P < 0.05, uncorrected) were used to explore differences between PD patients and normal controls during each task. Cluster size is the number of voxels.

All activated areas were significant at P < 0.001 (one-sample t-test, uncorrected).

L, left; R, right.

Motor tasks

Control subjects exhibited stronger signals in the right cerebellum, bilateral motor cortex (BA 4/6), left somatosensory cortex (BA 2/3), and right frontal gyrus (BA 10) compared with PD patients (Table 2, Figure 2b).

Intergroup comparisons showed significantly stronger activation in control subjects in the right extrastriate visual cortex (MT/V5, BA 18) and the caudate nucleus (Table 3). In contrast, greater activation was observed in PD patients in the bilateral frontal lobe (BA 24/9/32) and right thalamus (Table 3).

Tactile–motor integrated tasks

Controls demonstrated an increased signal in the bilateral somatosensory cortex (BA 40/2), left extrastriate visual cortex (BA 19, 37, left middle temporal gyrus/V5), thalamus and right cerebellum while performing tactile–motor integrated tasks (Figure 2C; Table 2).

Intergroup comparisons revealed increased activity in the right occipital lobe (BA 18/19) in control subjects compared with PD patients (Table 3). In contrast, increased activation was observed in PD patients compared with controls in the bilateral frontal lobe (BA 10/47) (Table 3).

Discussion

Results presented in this paper suggested that the right dorsal premotor BAs (PMdr), posterior parietal cortex, cerebellum, left postcentral gyrus and precentral gyrus comprised a sensorimotor integration neural network in neurologically normal subjects because they were activated during integration tasks. These regions could also be part of the striatal–thalamo–cortical loop, since this loop includes several parallel circuits, including the sensorimotor, associative and limbic circuits.^10,24,25 The sensorimotor circuit projects somatotopically from the primary sensorimotor area, PMA and SMA to the putamen, then through the thalamus and back to these cortical motor areas.^26,27 Studies have suggested that the PMd (especially the PMdr), is involved in integrating spatial information with motor programming to produce precise sequential movement maps that are necessary to facilitate complex movements.^28,29 In addition, the posterior parietal cortex is thought to integrate visual, somatic and other information, and provides a sensory representation of extrapersonal space.²⁶

In PD patients, the sensorimotor integration networks probably include the bilateral middle frontal gyrus (BA 6/10; Table 2), left middle temporal gyrus/V5 and the right occipital lobe (BA 18), since they are activated during integration tasks. Observations in PD patients, including reports of excessive reliance on visual information during movement tasks, have suggested an abnormality in the sensorimotor integration process. Some studies reported that training associations between auditory or visual cues in PD patients produced greater improvements than conventional treatments.^30,31 Our present findings support the notion that visual cues can provide a supplementary source of information to improve the efficacy of the visual–motor pathway, since the right middle frontal gyrus (BA 6) was activated. Importantly, the left middle temporal gyrus is involved in movement perception, and the left parietal cortex is involved in temporospatial movement control.³² We observed abnormal activation in the left middle temporal gyrus when PD patients performed motor tasks.

Our study revealed decreased visual activation in PD patients during tactile, movement and sensorimotor integration tasks when compared with controls. Extrastriate visual regions correspond to right BA 18, BA 19 and the inferior temporal gyrus (BA 20). Our results also revealed activity in the bilateral middle temporal gyrus/V5 during all three tasks in both groups. We hypothesize that decreased activity in the visual cortex may relate to hypokinetic movements in PD.

The term visual cortex refers to the primary visual cortex (also known as striate cortex or V1) and extrastriate visual cortical areas, including V2, V3, V4 and V5. The primary visual cortex is anatomically equivalent to BA 17. A hierarchical relationship between a primary cortex and secondary cortices is found in several parts of the brain, including the sensory, motor and auditory cortices, which as a whole perform information processing on a more global level.³³ Several fMRI studies have confirmed that these multisensory areas are involved in tactile and movement perception, in normal subjects.^21,34,35

In accordance with such findings, our results confirmed an activation in extrastriate visual cortical areas during tactile tasks and, importantly, during movement and integration tasks in neurologically normal controls. However, our findings revealed significantly decreased activity in right BA 18 and BA 19, in patients with early PD compared with neurologically normal controls.

The BAs 18 and 19 are involved in the translation and interpretation of visual impressions transmitted from BA 17. Although simple and complex cells are found in visual association cortex, the region is predominantly populated by hypercomplex (both higher and lower order) neurons, most of which are involved in the determination of precise geometric form, as well as the assimilation of signals transmitted from the primary cortex.³⁵ In addition to visual input, neurons in the superior portions of BA 19 respond to tactile stimuli.³⁶ We propose that decreased activation at these loci (BAs 18 and 19) is likely to be involved in the dysfunction of tactile perception in PD and may play a role in sensorimotor integration.

Visual area middle temporal gyrus/V5 is thought to play a major role in the perception of motion, the integration of local motion signals into global percepts and the guidance of some eye movements.³⁷ Research has demonstrated that neurons in this area are capable of responding to visual information, often in a direction-selective manner, even after V1 has been destroyed or deactivated.³⁸ Lesion research has confirmed the role of the middle temporal gyrus/V5 in motion perception, with a neuropsychological report of a patient with lesions in this area who was unable to visualize motion, instead seeing the world in a series of static ‘frames’³⁹ Our surprising finding of decreased activity in the middle temporal gyrus/V5 in PD patients during the movement task suggests that this region may play a key role in sensorimotor computation and movement dysfunction.

The present study has some limitations. We were unable to get an accurate correlation in the tactile–motor procedure, which is the aim of our next study. The effect of medication was minimized as much as possible, otherwise PD patients would have been unable to fulfil the tasks due to tremor. While high-quality images were needed for this study, PD patients find it difficult to control their movements. For this reason, early stage PD patients were selected. The study began in 2007 and continued for >5 years due to the difficulty in recruiting suitable participants. The software package we used (SPM2) was current at the start of the study, but has been updated in subsequent years. Although the older version lacked consistency and was less compatible with toolboxes than later versions, we believe the results are still credible.

Based on these observations, we propose that extrastriate visual responses to object shapes and perception of motion might be similarly integrated, enhancing the population response to sensorimotor stimuli. Understanding the precise role of this area in perception and cognition will require additional research in future.

To conclude, the current results provide novel insights into the cortical components of sensorimotor integration that may underlie the motor symptoms of PD. In particular, our findings suggest an important role of initial sensory input and movement outcomes related to extrastriate visual cortex activity. Future work should focus on elucidating the precise multisensory role of the extrastriate visual cortex.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interest

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.

Funding

This study was supported by the Zhejiang Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No.LY13H180005),Public Interest Research on Social Development Projects of Zhejiang Province (Grant No. 2012c33051),and the Foundation of the Education Department of Zhejiang Province of China (Grant No. Y200909841).

Acknowledgements

We thank Dr Lifei Ma,GE MR modality application specialist,and Dr Xiaoping Xie,Physics Department of Zhejiang University,for their help with data analysis for this study.

References

Gelb

Oliver

Gilman

. Diagnostic criteria for Parkinson disease. Arch Neurol 1999; 56: 33–39.

Samii

Nutt

Ransom

. Parkinson’s disease. Lancet 2004; 363: 1783–1793.

Abbruzzese

Berardelli

. Sensorimotor integration in movement disorders. Mov Disord 2003; 18: 231–240.

Baglio

Blasi

Falini

. Functional brain changes in early Parkinson’s disease during motor response and motor inhibition. Neurobiol Aging 2011; 32: 115–124.

Abbruzzese

Berardelli

. Further progress in understanding the pathophysiology of primary dystonia. Mov Disord 2011; 26: 1185–6.

Marchese

Diverio

Zucchi

. The role of sensory cues in the rehabilitation of parkinsonian patients: a comparison of two physical therapy protocols. Movt Disord 2000; 15: 879–883.

Rossini

Filippi

Vernieri

. Neurophysiology of sensorimotor integration in Parkinson’s disease. Clin Neurosci 1998; 5: 121–130.

Forss

Jousmäki

. Sensorimotor integration in human primary and secondary somatosensory cortices. Brain Res 1998; 781: 259–267.

Haslinger

Erhard

Kämpfe

. Event-related functional magnetic resonance imaging in Parkinson’s disease before and after levodopa. Brain 2001; 124(Pt 3): 558–570.

10.

Long

Zang

. Regional homogeneity changes in patients with Parkinson’s disease. Hum Brain Mapp 2009; 30: 1502–1510.

11.

Boecker

Jankowski

Ditter

. A role of the basal ganglia and midbrain nuclei for initiation of motor sequences. Neuroimage 2008; 39: 1356–1369.

12.

Tamburin

Fiaschi

Idone

. Abnormal sensorimotor integration is related to disease severity in Parkinson's disease: A TMS study. Movement Disorder 2003; 18: 1316–1324.

13.

Berardelli

Rothwell

Thompson

. Pathophysiology of bradykinesia in Parkinson's disease. Brain 2001; 124: 2131–2146.

14.

Fahn

Elton

Unified Parkinson’s disease rating scale. In: Fahn

Marsden

Goldstein

(eds). Recent Developments in Parkinson’s 1987; Vol 2, Florham Park, NJ: Macmillan Healthcare Information, pp. 153–163.

15.

Hoehn

Yahr

. Parkinsonism: onset, progression and mortality. Neurology 1967; 17: 427–442.

16.

Raczkowski

Kalat

Nebes

. Reliability and validity of some handedness questionnaire items. Neuropsychologia 1974; 12: 43–47.

17.

Talairach

Tournoux

. Co-planar stereotaxic atlas of the human brain. 3-Dimensional proportional system: an approach to cerebral imaging, New York, NY: Thieme Medical Publishers, 1988.

18.

Friston

Holmes

Worsley

. Statistical parametric maps in functional imaging: a general linear approach. Hum Brain Mapp 1994; 2: 189–210.

19.

Pereira

Junque

Marti

M-J

. Neuroanatomical substrate of visuospatial and visuoperceptual impairment in Parkinson's disease. Movement Disorder 2009; 24: 1193–1199.

20.

Keitz M, Koerts J, Kortekaas R, et al. Prefrontal cortex and striatal activation by feedback in Parkinson's disease. Brain Research doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2008.07.110.

21.

Zhang

Mariola

Stilla

. Tactile discrimination of grating orientation: fMRI activation patterns. Hum Brain Mapp 2005; 25: 370–377.

22.

Zangaladze

Epstein

Grafton

. Involvement of visual cortex in tactile discrimination of orientation. Nature 1999; 401: 587–590.

23.

Sathian

Prather

Zhang

Visual cortical involvement in normal tactile perception. In: Calvert

Spence

Stein

(eds). The handbook of multisensory processes, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2004, pp. 703–709.

24.

Nakamura

Ghilardi

Mentis

. Functional networks in motor sequence learning: abnormal topographies in Parkinson’s disease. Hum Brain Mapp 2001; 12: 42–60.

25.

Alexander

Crutcher

DeLong

. Basal ganglia-thalamocortical circuits: parallel substrates for motor, oculomotor, “prefrontal” and “limbic” functions. Prog Brain Res 1990; 85: 119–146.

26.

Alexander

DeLong

Strick

. Parallel organization of functionally segregated circuits linking basal ganglia and cortex. Annu Rev Neurosci 1986; 9: 357–381.

27.

Flaherty

Graybiel

. Two input systems for body representations in the primate striatal matrix: experimental evidence in the squirrel monkey. J Neurosci 1993; 13: 1120–1137.

28.

Catalan

Honda

Weeks

. The functional neuroanatomy of simple and complex sequential finger movements: a PET study. Brain 1998; 121(Pt 2): 253–264.

29.

Hadj-Bouziane

Meunier

Boussaoud

. Conditional visuo-motor learning in primates: a key role for the basal ganglia. J Physiol Paris 2003; 97: 567–579.

30.

Frazzitta

Maestri

Uccellini

. Rehabilitation treatment of gait in patients with Parkinson’s disease with freezing: a comparison between two physical therapy protocols using visual and auditory cues with or without treadmill training. Mov Disord 2009; 24: 1139–1143.

31.

Nieuwboer

. Cueing for freezing of gait in patients with Parkinson’s disease: a rehabilitation perspective. Mov Disord 2009; 23(suppl 2): S475–S481.

32.

Assmus

Giessing

Weiss

. Functional interactions during the retrieval of conceptual action knowledge: an fMRI study. J Cogn Neurosci 2007; 19: 1004–1012.

33.

Kaas

. The evolution of the complex sensory and motor systems of the human brain. Brain Res Bull 2008; 75: 384–390.

34.

Sathian

Zangaladze

. Feeling with the mind’s eye: the role of visual imagery in tactile perception. Optom Vis Sci 2001; 78: 276–281.

35.

Kaas

Preuss

Human brain evolution. In: Squire

(ed). Fundamental neuroscience 2003; Vol. 2, San Diego, CA: Academic Press, pp. 1147–1166.

36.

Beauchamp

. See me, hear me, touch me: multisensory integration in lateral occipital-temporal cortex. Curr Opin Neurobiol 2005; 15: 145–153.

37.

Born

Bradley

. Structure and function of visual area MT. Annu Rev Neurosci 2005; 28: 157–189.

38.

Rodman

Gross

Albright

. Afferent basis of visual response properties in area MT of the macaque. I. Effects of striate cortex removal. J Neurosci 1989; 9: 2033–2050.

39.

Hess

Baker

Zihl

. The “motion-blind” patients: low-level spatial and temporal filters. J Neurosci 1989; 9: 1628–1640.

Altered activation in visual cortex: Unusual functional magnetic resonance imaging finding in early Parkinson’s disease

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keywords

Introduction

Patients and methods

Participants

Study design

Passive tactile stimulation task

Motor task

Tactile–motor integration task

fMRI procedure

Imaging and statistical analyses

Results

Participants

Tactile tasks

Motor tasks

Tactile–motor integrated tasks

Discussion

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interest

Funding

Acknowledgements

References