↓ Skip to main content

Testing an aetiological model of visual hallucinations in Parkinson's disease

Overview of attention for article published in Brain, September 2011
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
128 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
197 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Testing an aetiological model of visual hallucinations in Parkinson's disease
Published in
Brain, September 2011
DOI 10.1093/brain/awr225
Pubmed ID
Authors

David A. Gallagher, Laura Parkkinen, Sean S. O'Sullivan, Alexander Spratt, Ameet Shah, Clare C. Davey, Fion D. Bremner, Tamas Revesz, David R. Williams, Andrew J. Lees, Anette Schrag

Abstract

The exact pathogenesis of visual hallucinations in Parkinson's disease is not known but an integrated model has been proposed that includes impaired visual input and central visual processing, impaired brainstem regulation of sleep-wake cycle with fluctuating vigilance, intrusion of rapid eye movement dream imagery into wakefulness and emergence of internally generated imagery, cognitive dysfunction and influence of dopaminergic drugs. In a clinical study, we assessed motor and non-motor function, including sleep, mood, autonomic and global, frontal and visuoperceptive cognitive function in patients with and without visual hallucinations. A subgroup of patients underwent detailed ophthalmological assessment. In a separate pathological study, histological specimens were obtained from cases of pathologically proven Parkinson's disease and a retrospective case notes review was made for reporting of persistent formed visual hallucinations. An assessment of Lewy body and Lewy neurite pathology was carried out in five cortical regions as recommended by diagnostic criteria for dementia with Lewy Bodies and in brainstem nuclei. Ninety-four patients (mean age 67.5 ± 9.5 years) participated in the clinical study of whom 32% experienced visual hallucinations. When corrected for multiple comparisons, patients with visual hallucinations had significantly greater disease duration, treatment duration, motor severity and complications, sleep disturbances, in particular excessive daytime somnolence and rapid eye movement sleep behavioural disorder, disorders of mood, autonomic dysfunction and global, frontal and visuoperceptive cognitive dysfunction. Of the 94 patients, 50 (53%) underwent ophthalmological assessment. There were no differences in ocular pathology between the visual hallucination and non-visual hallucination groups. In a logistic regression model the four independent determinants of visual hallucinations were rapid eye movement sleep behavioural disorder (P = 0.026), autonomic function (P = 0.004), frontal cognitive function (P = 0.020) and a test of visuoperceptive function (object decision; P = 0.031). In a separate study, post-mortem analysis was performed in 91 subjects (mean age at death 75.5 ± 8.0 years) and persistent visual hallucinations were documented in 63%. Patients in the visual hallucinations group had similar disease duration but had significantly higher Lewy body densities in the middle frontal (P = 0.002) and middle temporal gyri (P = 0.033) and transentorhinal (P = 0.005) and anterior cingulate (P = 0.020) cortices but not parietal cortex (P = 0.22). Using a comprehensive assessment of the clinical, demographic and ophthalmological correlates of visual hallucinations in Parkinson's disease, the combined data support the hypothesized model of impaired visual processing, sleep-wake dysregulation and brainstem dysfunction, and cognitive, particularly frontal, impairment all independently contributing to the pathogenesis of visual hallucinations in Parkinson's disease. These clinical data are supported by the pathological study, in which higher overall cortical Lewy body counts, and in particular areas implicated in visuoperception and executive function, were associated with visual hallucinations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 197 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 2%
United Kingdom 3 2%
South Africa 2 1%
Japan 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 187 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 30 15%
Researcher 26 13%
Student > Bachelor 18 9%
Student > Master 16 8%
Other 15 8%
Other 39 20%
Unknown 53 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 58 29%
Psychology 33 17%
Neuroscience 24 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 4%
Social Sciences 3 2%
Other 11 6%
Unknown 60 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 December 2014.
All research outputs
#15,313,289
of 22,775,504 outputs
Outputs from Brain
#6,071
of 7,102 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#88,589
of 126,452 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Brain
#56
of 68 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,775,504 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,102 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.3. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 126,452 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 68 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.