The Influence of Movement Initiation Deficits on the Quantification of Retention in Parkinson’s Disease

Abstract

In patients with an impaired motor system, like Parkinson’s disease (PD), deficits in motor learning are expected and results of various studies seem to confirm these expectations. However, most studies in this regard are behaviorally based and quantify learning by performance changes between at least two points in time, e.g., baseline and retention. But, performance in a retention test is also dependent on other factors than learning. Especially in patients, the functional capacity of the control system might be altered unspecific to a certain task and learning episode. The aim of the study is to test whether characteristic temporal deficits exist in PD patients that affect retention performance. We tested the confounding effects of typical PD motor control deficits, here movement initiation deficits, on retention performance in the motor learning process. 12 PD patients and 16 healthy control participants practiced a virtual throwing task over 3 days with 24 h rest between sessions. Retention was tested comparing performance before rest with performance after rest. Movement initiation deficits were quantified by the timing of throwing release that should be affected by impairments in movement initiation. To scrutinize the influence of the initiation deficits on retention performance we gave participants a specific initiation intervention prior to practice on one of the three practice days. We found that only for the PD patients, post-rest performance as well as release timing was better with intervention as compared to without intervention. Their performance could be enhanced through a tuning of release initiation. Thus, we suggest that in PD patients, performance decline after rest that might be easily interpreted as learning deficits could rather result from disease-related deficiencies in motor control.

Measuring vocal motor skill with a virtual voice-controlled slingshot

“…This paradigm warrants future work to investigate the potential for quantification of improvements in voice training and novel clinical capabilities in the field of voice disorder rehabilitation-the ultimate goal being to improve assessment and treatment of patients with voice disorders. For example, the TNC-costs approach enabled novel characterizations of upper-limb control and learning in children with dystonia (Chu et al, 2016) and a virtual throwing task has been used in a group of patients with Parkinson's disease (Pendt et al, 2012). Consequently, it seems feasible that this approach may be applied to patients with neurologic disorders associated with vocal deterioration (e.g., Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis).…”

Analysis of timing variability in human movements by aligning parameter curves in time

“…The standard deviation of the time shifts then represents the timing variability. The procedure can be applied to compare timing between individual trials of one set (Maurer et al, 2014) as well as between different sets of trials (Maurer et al, 2014;Pendt, Maurer, & Müller, 2012). When more than one set of trials of different conditions (e.g., the trials before and after a break) are compared, trials of all sets are passed to the algorithm at once and parameter curves are collectively aligned.…”

Motor Skill Retention Impairments in Parkinson’s Disease: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis

“…Disease severity, which was not reported in eight studies (Agostino et al, 2004;Lee et al, 2019;Leow et al, 2012;Mochizuki-Kawai et al, 2010;Nutt et al, 2000;Roy et al, 2015;Simley-Oyen et al, 2002;Smiley-Oyen et al, 2003), ranged from I to IV on the Hoehn & Yahr scale. The mean overall scores of the motor evaluation conducted with the UPDRS part III, which was reported in 22 studies (Agostino et al, 2004;Dan et al, 2015;Isaias et al, 2011;Kawashima et al, 2018;Lahlou et al, 2022;Lee et al, 2019;Leow et al, 2012;Lin et al, 2007;Marinelli et al, 2017b;Nackaerts et al, 2020;Nelson et al, 2017;Nicastro et al, 2018;Pendt et al, 2012;Pendt et al, 2011;Peterson et al, 2016;Roy et al, 2015;Sehm et al, 2014;Sidaway et al, 2016;Van Ooteghem et al, 2017;Whitfield and Goberman, 2017), ranged from 8 to 33.4, indicating that the severity of motor symptoms of patients ranged from mild to moderate (Hentz et al, 2015;Martínez-Martín et al, 2015). Disease duration, which was reported in all but seven studies (Dantas et al, 2018;Marinelli et al, 2017b;Mochizuki-Kawai et al, 2010;Sato et al, 2014;Sidaway et al, 2016;Simley-Oyen et al, 2002;Smiley-Oyen et al, 2003)…”

“…After identifying 45 studies, one additional study (Nutt et al, 2000) found in the reference list of studies reviewed was added. The review included a total of 46 studies but since it was not possible to obtain means and SDs from six studies (Doyon et al, 1998;Gawrys et al, 2008;Isaias et al, 2011;Nutt et al, 2000;ThomasAnterion et al, 1996;Werheid et al, 2003), whose results are reported qualitatively, the meta-analyses included 40 studies (Agostino et al, 2004;Behrman et al, 2000;Dan et al, 2015;Dantas et al, 2018;Foreman et al, 2013;Hadj-Bouziane et al, 2013;Harrington et al, 1990;Jessop et al, 2006;Kawashima et al, 2018;Lahlou et al, 2022;Lee et al, 2016;Lee and Fisher, 2018;Lee et al, 2019;Leow et al, 2012;Lin et al, 2007;Marinelli et al, 2017b;Mochizuki-Kawai et al, 2010;Nackaerts et al, 2020;Nelson et al, 2017;Nicastro et al, 2018;Onla-Or and Winstein, 2008;Pendt et al, 2012;Pendt et al, 2011;Peterson et al, 2016;Platz et al, 1998;Roy et al, 2015;Sato et al, 2014;Sehm et al, 2014;Sidaway et al, 2016;Simley-Oyen et al, 2002;Smiley-Oyen et al, 2012;Smiley-Oyen et al, 2006;…”