Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
Adaptive control has been studied in Parkinson's disease mainly in the context of proactive control and with mixed results. We compared reactive- and proactive control in 30 participants with Parkinson's disease to 30 age matched healthy control participants. The electroencephalographic activity of the participants was recorded over 128 channels while they performed a numerical Stroop task, in which we controlled for confounding stimulus-response learning. We assessed effects of reactive- and proactive control on reaction time-, accuracy- and electroencephalographic time-frequency data. Behavioural results show distinct impairments of proactive- and reactive control in participants with Parkinson's disease, when tested on their usual medication. Compared to healthy control participants, participants with Parkinson's disease were impaired in their ability to adapt cognitive control proactively and were less effective to resolve conflict using reactive control. Successful reactive and proactive control in the healthy control group was accompanied by a reduced conflict effect between congruent and incongruent items in midline-frontal theta power. Our findings provide evidence for a general impairment of proactive control in Parkinson's disease and highlight the importance of controlling for the effects of S-R learning when studying adaptive control. Evidence concerning reactive control was inconclusive, but we found that participants with Parkinson's disease were less effective than healthy control participants in resolving conflict during the reactive control task.
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.