Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
Background: Patients with Parkinson’s disease (PD) can develop the cognitive adverse effect of impulse control disorders (ICDs) while undergoing a pharmacological treatment for motor control dysfunctions with a dopamine agonist (DA). Conventional clinical interviews or questionnaires can be biased and may not provide an accurate diagnosis in the early stage. A wearable electroencephalogram (EEG)-sensing headset paired with an examination procedure can be a potential user-friendly method to explore ICD-related biomarkers that can reflect brain activity abnormalities and detect its early signs and progression.MethodsA stereotypical Go/NoGo test that targets impulse inhibition was performed with 59 individuals, including heathy controls, patients with PD, and patients with PD diagnosed with ICD. A low-cost LEGO-like EEG headset was used to record concurrent EEG signals. The event-related potential (ERP) analytical framework was then used to explore ICD-related EEG abnormalities after DA treatment.ResultsOnly PD patients with ICD exhibited a tendency for N2 and P3 amplitude deterioration at the fronto-central regions (i.e., Fz, FCz, and Cz); in particular, the P3 counterpart reached statistical significance (p<0.05). Neither PD patients nor healthy controls (without DA) replicated such findings. Furthermore, N2 amplitude deterioration was found to be related to ICD severity at Fz (r=-0.28, p=0.04).ConclusionsA low-cost LEGO-like EEG headset successfully captured ERP neuromarkers for the objective assessment of ICD in PD patients undergoing DA treatment. The present objective neuro-evidence could provide complementary information to conventional clinical scales used to diagnose the ICD adverse effect.
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.