| Title |
Deep Brain Stimulation for Movement Disorders of Basal Ganglia Origin: Restoring Function or Functionality?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Neurotherapeutics, April 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13311-016-0426-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Thomas Wichmann, Mahlon R DeLong |
| Abstract |
Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is highly effective for both hypo- and hyperkinetic movement disorders of basal ganglia origin. The clinical use of DBS is, in part, empiric, based on the experience with prior surgical ablative therapies for these disorders, and, in part, driven by scientific discoveries made decades ago. In this review, we consider anatomical and functional concepts of the basal ganglia relevant to our understanding of DBS mechanisms, as well as our current understanding of the pathophysiology of two of the most commonly DBS-treated conditions, Parkinson's disease and dystonia. Finally, we discuss the proposed mechanism(s) of action of DBS in restoring function in patients with movement disorders. The signs and symptoms of the various disorders appear to result from signature disordered activity in the basal ganglia output, which disrupts the activity in thalamocortical and brainstem networks. The available evidence suggests that the effects of DBS are strongly dependent on targeting sensorimotor portions of specific nodes of the basal ganglia-thalamocortical motor circuit, that is, the subthalamic nucleus and the internal segment of the globus pallidus. There is little evidence to suggest that DBS in patients with movement disorders restores normal basal ganglia functions (e.g., their role in movement or reinforcement learning). Instead, it appears that high-frequency DBS replaces the abnormal basal ganglia output with a more tolerable pattern, which helps to restore the functionality of downstream networks. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 216 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Chile | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 213 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 32 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 32 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 31 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 26 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 14 | 6% |
| Other | 42 | 19% |
| Unknown | 39 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Neuroscience | 48 | 22% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 38 | 18% |
| Engineering | 23 | 11% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 16 | 7% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 8 | 4% |
| Other | 28 | 13% |
| Unknown | 55 | 25% |
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 13 March 2016.
All research outputs
#19,944,091
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Neurotherapeutics
#1,128
of 1,308 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#219,496
of 314,725 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neurotherapeutics
#10
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,308 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.2. 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 314,725 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.