SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

The neural correlates of specific executive dysfunctions in Parkinson's disease.

Acta Neurobiol Exp (Wars) · 2014-01-01

DOI: 10.55782/ane-2014-2009PMID: 25576977

Check source for accessResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

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

Several functional neuroimaging studies in patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) have suggested that changes in the fronto-parietal-striatal networks are associated with deficits in executive functioning. However, executive functions (EF) are multifaceted and include three dissociable components: working memory, response inhibition, and task-switching. This study investigated which component of executive functioning is most strongly associated with fronto-parietal-striatal efficiency in PD. PD patients (with and without executive dysfunction), and age-matched healthy subjects, completed a battery of cognitive tests previously shown to discriminate among the three EF components. Principal component analysis conducted on the selected cognitive test variables yielded three expected EF components. The component scores were used in regression analysis to assess the relationship between the EF efficiency and blood oxygenation level-dependent (BOLD) signal related to performing the n-back, an experimental task that draws upon multiple components of executive functioning: working memory, response inhibition, and task-switching. We found distinct neural correlates of specific executive dysfunctions in patients with PD. However, all of them seem to be associated with fronto-parietal-striatal efficiency.

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.