SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Enhanced motivation of cognitive control in Parkinson's disease.

Eur J Neurosci · 2018-09-16

DOI: 10.1111/ejn.14137PMID: 30151991

Open accessResearch 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

Motor and cognitive deficits in Parkinson's disease (PD) have been argued to reflect motivational deficits. In prior work, however, we have shown that motivation of cognitive control is paradoxically potentiated rather than impaired in Parkinson's disease. This is particularly surprising given the fact that Parkinson's disease is often accompanied by depression, a prototypical disorder of motivation. To replicate our previous finding and assess the effects of depression, we investigated performance of PD patients with (n = 22) and without depression (history) (n = 23) and age-matched healthy controls (n = 23) on a task specifically designed to measure the effect of reward motivation on task-switching. We replicated previous findings by showing contrasting effects of reward motivation on task-switching in PD patients and age-matched healthy controls. While the promise of high versus low reward improved task-switching in PD, it tended to impair task-switching in age-matched healthy controls. There were no effects of a depression (history) diagnosis in PD patients. These findings reinforce prior observations that Parkinson's disease is accompanied by enhanced incentive motivation of cognitive control and highlight the potential of incentive motivational strategies for overcoming cognitive deficits in Parkinson's disease.

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.