NeuralCipher Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
ObjectiveThe present study shows the results of a double-blind sham-controlled pilot trial to test whether measurable stimulus-specific functional connectivity changes exist after Automatic Mechanical Peripheral Stimulation (AMPS) in patients with idiopathic Parkinson Disease.MethodsEleven patients (6 women and 5 men) with idiopathic Parkinson Disease underwent brain fMRI immediately before and after sham or effective AMPS. Resting state Functional Connectivity (RSFC) was assessed using the seed-ROI based analysis. Seed ROIs were positioned on basal ganglia, on primary sensory-motor cortices, on the supplementary motor areas and on the cerebellum. Individual differences for pre- and post-effective AMPS and pre- and post-sham condition were obtained and first entered in respective one-sample t-test analyses, to evaluate the mean effect of condition.ResultsEffective AMPS, but not sham stimulation, induced increase of RSFC of the sensory motor cortex, nucleus striatum and cerebellum. Secondly, individual differences for both conditions were entered into paired group t-test analysis to rule out sub-threshold effects of sham stimulation, which showed stronger connectivity of the striatum nucleus with the right lateral occipital cortex and the cuneal cortex (max Z score 3.12) and with the right anterior temporal lobe (max Z score 3.42) and of the cerebellum with the right lateral occipital cortex and the right cerebellar cortex (max Z score 3.79).ConclusionsOur results suggest that effective AMPS acutely increases RSFC of brain regions involved in visuo-spatial and sensory-motor integration.Classification of evidenceThis study provides Class II evidence that automatic mechanical peripheral stimulation is effective in modulating brain functional connectivity of patients with Parkinson Disease at rest.Trial registrationClinical Trials.gov NCT01815281.
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.