BACKGROUND: Primary dystonia is characterized neurophysiologically by reduced inhibitory mechanisms and abnormal regulation of plasticity responses. The potential of anodal cerebellar transcranial direct current stimulation as a therapeutic tool in writing dystonia was examined, after the observation that cerebellar stimulation reduces responses to an associative plasticity protocol in healthy subjects. METHODS: Ten patients with writing dystonia completed a two-part study (sham and anodal) in which cerebellar stimulation was given simultaneously with paired associative stimulation. Electrophysiological and clinical parameters were measured before and after stimulation. RESULTS: Clinical symptoms were unchanged by cerebellar stimulation. Patients exhibited much variability in the size and direction of their plasticity responses. Excessive or topographically abnormal plasticity responses were not observed. In the subgroup of patients with facilitatory responses to paired associative stimulation in the sham condition, anodal cerebellar stimulation retained its ability to reduce the magnitude of plasticity response. CONCLUSIONS: Our limited understanding of intersubject variability of plasticity responses in writing dystonia currently undermines cerebellar stimulation as a novel treatment in this subset of dystonia. Cerebellar stimulation may be beneficial in other neurological disorders with consistently exaggerated plasticity.
BACKGROUND:Primary dystonia is characterized neurophysiologically by reduced inhibitory mechanisms and abnormal regulation of plasticity responses. The potential of anodal cerebellar transcranial direct current stimulation as a therapeutic tool in writing dystonia was examined, after the observation that cerebellar stimulation reduces responses to an associative plasticity protocol in healthy subjects. METHODS: Ten patients with writing dystonia completed a two-part study (sham and anodal) in which cerebellar stimulation was given simultaneously with paired associative stimulation. Electrophysiological and clinical parameters were measured before and after stimulation. RESULTS: Clinical symptoms were unchanged by cerebellar stimulation. Patients exhibited much variability in the size and direction of their plasticity responses. Excessive or topographically abnormal plasticity responses were not observed. In the subgroup of patients with facilitatory responses to paired associative stimulation in the sham condition, anodal cerebellar stimulation retained its ability to reduce the magnitude of plasticity response. CONCLUSIONS: Our limited understanding of intersubject variability of plasticity responses in writing dystonia currently undermines cerebellar stimulation as a novel treatment in this subset of dystonia. Cerebellar stimulation may be beneficial in other neurological disorders with consistently exaggerated plasticity.
Authors: Manon W Linssen; Judith van Gaalen; Moniek A M Munneke; Britt S Hoffland; Wouter Hulstijn; Bart P C van de Warrenburg Journal: Brain Date: 2014-11-13 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Vikram G Shakkottai; Amit Batla; Kailash Bhatia; William T Dauer; Christian Dresel; Martin Niethammer; David Eidelberg; Robert S Raike; Yoland Smith; H A Jinnah; Ellen J Hess; Sabine Meunier; Mark Hallett; Rachel Fremont; Kamran Khodakhah; Mark S LeDoux; Traian Popa; Cécile Gallea; Stéphane Lehericy; Andreea C Bostan; Peter L Strick Journal: Cerebellum Date: 2017-04 Impact factor: 3.847
Authors: Petr Kaňovský; Raymond Rosales; Pavel Otruba; Martin Nevrlý; Lenka Hvizdošová; Robert Opavský; Michaela Kaiserová; Pavel Hok; Kateřina Menšíková; Petr Hluštík; Martin Bareš Journal: J Neural Transm (Vienna) Date: 2021-02-16 Impact factor: 3.575
Authors: Lidio Lima de Albuquerque; Milan Pantovic; Mitchell G Clingo; Katherine M Fischer; Sharon Jalene; Merrill R Landers; Zoltan Mari; Brach Poston Journal: Cerebellum Date: 2021-07-07 Impact factor: 3.648