SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Disordered Decision Making: A Cognitive Framework for Apathy and Impulsivity in Huntington's Disease.

Mov Disord · 2022-05-02

DOI: 10.1002/mds.29013PMID: 35491758

Open accessreview-article; Review; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

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

A caregiver's all-too-familiar narrative - "He doesn't think through what he does, but mostly he does nothing." Apathy and impulsivity, debilitating and poorly understood, commonly co-occur in Huntington's disease (HD). HD is a neurodegenerative disease with manifestations bridging clinical neurology and psychiatry. In addition to movement and cognitive symptoms, neurobehavioral disturbances, particularly apathy and impulsivity, are prevalent features of HD, occurring early in the disease course, often worsening with disease progression, and substantially reducing quality of life. Treatments remain limited, in part because of limited mechanistic understanding of these behavioral disturbances. However, emerging work within the field of decision-making neuroscience and beyond points to common neurobiological mechanisms underpinning these seemingly disparate problems. These insights bridge the gap between underlying disease pathology and clinical phenotype, offering new treatment strategies, novel behavioral and physiological biomarkers of HD, and deeper understanding of human behavior. In this review, we apply the neurobiological framework of cost-benefit decision making to the problems of apathy and impulsivity in HD. Through this decision-making lens, we develop a mechanistic model that elucidates the occurrence of these behavioral disturbances and points to potential treatment strategies and crucial research priorities. © 2022 The Authors. Movement Disorders published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International Parkinson Movement Disorder Society.

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.