SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Saccadic latency in Parkinson's disease correlates with executive function and brain atrophy, but not motor severity.

Neurobiol Dis · 2011-02-17

DOI: 10.1016/j.nbd.2011.01.032PMID: 21310235

Open accessComparative Study; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't; research-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

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

Brain regions related to saccadic control are affected by Parkinson's disease (PD) pathology and a relationship between abnormal saccades and cognitive features of PD has been suggested. We measured the latency of visually-evoked saccades, and correlated best-fit parameters in a LATER neuronal decision model μ and σ (mean and SD of the distribution of reciprocal latency, i.e. speed of response), and σ(E) (SD of the early component) with motor function, cognition and grey matter volume in 18 patients with PD and 17 controls. There was a negative correlation between verbal fluency and σ; no correlation was found between motor function and any of the latency parameters. Higher μ (shorter latency) positively correlated with grey matter volume in the prefrontal cortex, the cerebellar vermis, and the fusiform gyrus. There was a negative correlation between σ and grey matter volume in the frontal and parietal eye fields, the premotor cortex, and the lateral prefrontal cortex. σ(E) negatively correlated with grey matter volume in the frontal eye fields and the middle frontal gyrus. Our behavioural and imaging findings point to an association between saccade latency, executive function and the structural integrity within a well-defined oculomotor network.

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.