42
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found

      Network localization of cervical dystonia based on causal brain lesions

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The brain network responsible for cervical dystonia is unknown. Using lesion network mapping, Corp et al. show that lesions causing cervical dystonia are functionally connected to the cerebellum and sensorimotor cortex. The authors then validate the abnormality of this network in a cohort of cervical dystonia patients without brain lesions. Cervical dystonia is a neurological disorder characterized by sustained, involuntary movements of the head and neck. Most cases of cervical dystonia are idiopathic, with no obvious cause, yet some cases are acquired, secondary to focal brain lesions. These latter cases are valuable as they establish a causal link between neuroanatomy and resultant symptoms, lending insight into the brain regions causing cervical dystonia and possible treatment targets. However, lesions causing cervical dystonia can occur in multiple different brain locations, leaving localization unclear. Here, we use a technique termed ‘lesion network mapping’, which uses connectome data from a large cohort of healthy subjects (resting state functional MRI, n = 1000) to test whether lesion locations causing cervical dystonia map to a common brain network. We then test whether this network, derived from brain lesions, is abnormal in patients with idiopathic cervical dystonia ( n = 39) versus matched controls ( n = 37). A systematic literature search identified 25 cases of lesion-induced cervical dystonia. Lesion locations were heterogeneous, with lesions scattered throughout the cerebellum, brainstem, and basal ganglia. However, these heterogeneous lesion locations were all part of a single functionally connected brain network. Positive connectivity to the cerebellum and negative connectivity to the somatosensory cortex were specific markers for cervical dystonia compared to lesions causing other neurological symptoms. Connectivity with these two regions defined a single brain network that encompassed the heterogeneous lesion locations causing cervical dystonia. These cerebellar and somatosensory regions also showed abnormal connectivity in patients with idiopathic cervical dystonia. Finally, the most effective deep brain stimulation sites for treating dystonia were connected to these same cerebellar and somatosensory regions identified using lesion network mapping. These results lend insight into the causal neuroanatomical substrate of cervical dystonia, demonstrate convergence across idiopathic and acquired dystonia, and identify a network target for dystonia treatment.

          Related collections

          Most cited references58

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Connectivity Predicts deep brain stimulation outcome in Parkinson disease.

          The benefit of deep brain stimulation (DBS) for Parkinson disease (PD) may depend on connectivity between the stimulation site and other brain regions, but which regions and whether connectivity can predict outcome in patients remain unknown. Here, we identify the structural and functional connectivity profile of effective DBS to the subthalamic nucleus (STN) and test its ability to predict outcome in an independent cohort.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            SPM: A history

            Karl Friston began the SPM project around 1991. The rest is history
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Two different areas within the primary motor cortex of man.

              The primary motor area (M1) of mammals has long been considered to be structurally and functionally homogeneous. This area corresponds to Brodmann's cytoarchitectural area 4. A few reports showing that arm and hand are doubly represented in M1 of macaque monkeys and perhaps man, and that each subarea has separate connections from somatosensory areas, have, with a few exceptions, gone largely unnoticed. Here we show that area 4 in man can be subdivided into areas '4 anterior' (4a) and '4 posterior' (4p) on the basis of both quantitative cytoarchitecture and quantitative distributions of transmitter-binding sites. We also show by positron emission tomography that two representations of the fingers exist, one in area 4a and one in area 4p. Roughness discrimination activated area 4p significantly more than a control condition of self-generated movements. We therefore suggest that the primary motor area is subdivided on the basis of anatomy, neurochemistry and function.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Brain
                Oxford University Press (OUP)
                0006-8950
                1460-2156
                June 2019
                June 01 2019
                May 28 2019
                June 2019
                June 01 2019
                May 28 2019
                : 142
                : 6
                : 1660-1674
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Berenson-Allen Center for Non-Invasive Brain Stimulation and Division of Cognitive Neurology, Department of Neurology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
                [2 ]Cognitive Neuroscience Unit, School of Psychology, Deakin University, 221 Burwood Highway, Burwood, VIC, Australia
                [3 ]Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Charlestown, MA, USA
                [4 ]Department of Neurology, University of Turku, Turku, Finland
                [5 ]Division of Clinical Neurosciences, Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland
                [6 ]Department of Neurology, Division of Cognitive and Behavioral Neurology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
                [7 ]Department of Neurology, Máxima Medical Centre, Veldhoven, The Netherlands
                [8 ]Department of Neurology, Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition, and Behaviour, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
                [9 ]MicroTransponder, Austin, TX, USA
                [10 ]Deparment of Neurology, University Hospital and Julius-Maximilians-University, Wuerzburg, Germany
                [11 ]UCL Institute of Neurology, Queen Square, London, UK
                [12 ]Sobell Department of Movement Neuroscience, Institute of Neurology, UCL, National Hospital for Neurology, Queen Square, London, UK
                [13 ]Department of Neurology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
                [14 ]Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
                Article
                10.1093/brain/awz112
                6536848
                31099831
                a07c57f8-d304-4841-8e05-c40ffec91f36
                © 2019

                https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article