Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
BackgroundGait asymmetry and deficits in gait initiation (GI) are among the most disabling symptoms in people with Parkinson's disease (PwPD). Understanding if PwPD with reduced asymmetry during GI have higher asymmetry in cortical activity may provide support for an adaptive mechanism to improve GI, particularly in the presence of an obstacle.ObjectiveThis study quantified the asymmetry of anticipatory postural adjustments (APAs), stepping parameters and cortical activity during GI, and tested if the presence of an obstacle regulates asymmetry in PwPD.MethodsSixteen PwPD and 16 control group (CG) performed 20-trials in two conditions: unobstructed and obstructed GI with right and left limbs. We measured, through symmetry index, (i) motor parameters: APAs and stepping, and (ii) cortical activity: the PSD of the frontal, sensorimotor and occipital areas during APA, STEP-I (moment of heel-off of the leading foot in the GI until the heel contact of the same foot); and STEP-II (moment of the heel-off of the trailing foot in the GI until the heel contact of the same foot) phases.ResultsParkinson's disease showed higher asymmetry in cortical activity during APA, STEP-I and STEP-II phases and step velocity (STEP-II phase) during unobstructed GI than CG. However, unexpectedly, PwPD reduced the level of asymmetry of anterior-posterior displacement (p p p ConclusionParkinson's disease were not motor asymmetric during GI, indicating that higher cortical activity asymmetry can be interpreted as an adaptive behavior to reduce motor asymmetry. In addition, the presence of obstacle did not regulate motor asymmetry during GI in PwPD.
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.