Dystonia, a debilitating movement disorder characterized by abnormal fixed positions and/or twisting postures, is associated with dysfunction of motor control networks. While gross brain lesions can produce secondary dystonias, advanced neuroimaging techniques have been required to identify network abnormalities in primary dystonias. Prior neuroimaging studies have provided valuable insights into the pathophysiology of dystonia, but few directly assessed the gross volume of motor control regions, and to our knowledge, none identified abnormalities common to multiple types of idiopathic focal dystonia.
We used two gross volumetric segmentation techniques and one voxelwise volumetric technique (voxel based morphometry, VBM) to compare regional volume between matched healthy controls and patients with idiopathic primary focal dystonia (cervical, n = 17, laryngeal, n = 7). We used (1) automated gross volume measures of eight motor control regions using the FreeSurfer analysis package; (2) blinded, anatomist-supervised manual segmentation of the whole thalamus (also gross volume); and (3) voxel based morphometry, which measures local T1-weighted signal intensity and estimates gray matter density or volume at the level of single voxels, for both whole-brain and thalamus.
Using both automated and manual gross volumetry, we found a significant volume decrease only in the thalamus in two focal dystonias. Decreases in whole-thalamic volume were independent of head and brain size, laterality of symptoms, and duration. VBM measures did not differ between dystonia and control groups in any motor control region.
Reduced thalamic gross volume, detected in two independent analyses, suggests a common anatomical abnormality in cervical dystonia and spasmodic dysphonia. Defining the structural underpinnings of dystonia may require such complementary approaches.
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 16 May 2016.
All research outputs
#18,458,033
of 22,870,727 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#155,252
of 195,083 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#230,355
of 311,729 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#3,977
of 4,859 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,870,727 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 195,083 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. 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 311,729 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,859 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.
