SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Directed attention in Gilles de la Tourette syndrome.

Behav Neurol · 1998-01-01

DOI: 10.1155/1998/413436PMID: 11568405

Check source for accessJournal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

Gilles de la Tourette syndrome (TS) is a basal ganglia (BG) disorder, associated not only with hyperkinetic movements but also with attentional impairments. This experiment sought to ascertain whether overt direct visual attention would influence tactile attentional performance in TS, via the use of a vibrotactile choice reaction time procedure involving biased probabilities of event occurrence. Participants were required to look (i.e., direct gaze) either at the hand receiving the most (expected) vibrations, or the hand less often stimulated (the unexpected), for both crossed and uncrossed arm postures. Contrary to our predictions, gaze did not influence attentional performance in TS patients. Furthermore, patients were found not to be sensitive to distributions of event probability; that is, they did not demonstrate normal expectancy effects like controls. Attentional deficits in TS (as in Parkinson's disease, another BG disorder) may pertain more to difficulties in holding rather than in shifting the focus of attention. Moreover, directing attention towards the unexpected locus in the crossed arm posture improved overall performance in both patients and controls, suggesting that increased task demands (e.g., crossed arm posture), and/or unexpected stimulus location, may be alleviated by directed attention. These impairments may stem from dysfunction in the circuits linking the frontal lobes with the BG.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.