Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
Introduction: Deep brain stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus (STN-DBS) ameliorates motor function in patients with Parkinson's disease and allows reducing dopaminergic therapy. Beside effects on motor function STN-DBS influences many non-motor symptoms, among which decline of verbal fluency test performance is most consistently reported. The surgical procedure itself is the likely cause of this decline, while the influence of the electrical stimulation is still controversial. STN-DBS also produces widespread changes of cortical activity as visualized by quantitative EEG. The present study aims to link an alteration in verbal fluency performance by electrical stimulation of the STN to alterations in quantitative EEG. Methods: Sixteen patients with STN-DBS were included. All patients had a high density EEG recording (256 channels) while testing verbal fluency in the stimulator on/off situation. The phonemic, semantic, alternating phonemic and semantic fluency was tested (Regensburger Wortflüssigkeits-Test). Results: On the group level, stimulation of STN did not alter verbal fluency performance. EEG frequency analysis showed an increase of relative alpha2 (10-13 Hz) and beta (13-30 Hz) power in the parieto-occipital region (p ≤ 0.01). On the individual level, changes of verbal fluency induced by stimulation of the STN were disparate and correlated inversely with delta power in the left temporal lobe (p Conclusion: STN stimulation does not alter verbal fluency performance in a systematic way at group level. However, when in individual patients an alteration of verbal fluency performance is produced by electrical stimulation of the STN, it correlates inversely with left temporal delta power.
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.