Motor control: Physiology of voluntary and involuntary movements


Movement, whether voluntary or involuntary, is produced by the contraction of muscle. Muscle, in turn, is normally controlled entirely by the anterior horn cells or alpha motoneurons. An anterior horn cell with its innervated muscle fibers is called the motor unit. Some involuntary movement disorders arise from muscle, the alpha motoneuron axon, or the alpha motoneuron itself. Although this territory might be considered neuromuscular disease, the border to movement disorders can be fuzzy and patients may present to the office of the movement disorder specialist for diagnosis and management. Examples of involuntary movement arising from neuromuscular disorders that will be discussed in subsequent chapters are listed in Table 2.1 .

Table 2.1
Examples of involuntary movements arising from neuromuscular conditions
Muscle
Rippling muscle disease
Alpha motoneuron axon
Hemifacial spasm
Peripheral myoclonus
Fasciculation
Neuromyotonia
Anterior horn cell
Fasciculation
Spinal alpha rigidity

As the sole controller of muscle, the alpha motoneuron is clearly important in understanding the genesis of movement. The influences on the alpha motoneuron are many and complex but have been extensively studied. Here only the basics will be reviewed ( ; ). Inputs onto the alpha motoneuron can be divided into the segmental inputs and the supraspinal inputs.

Segmental inputs onto the alpha motoneuron

Fig. 2.1 depicts some of the reflex connections onto the alpha motoneuron.

Fig. 2.1, Diagram of reflex connections onto the alpha motoneuron. Inhibitory neurons are dark green and excitatory neurons light green. Excitatory synapses are Y-shaped; inhibitory synapses are balls. FRAs, Flexor reflex afferents.

Renshaw cell. The alpha motoneuron axon has a recurrent collateral in the spinal cord that synapses onto the Renshaw cell. Similar to the neuromuscular junction, the neurotransmitter onto the Renshaw cell is acetylcholine. The Renshaw cell then directly inhibits the alpha motoneuron using glycine as the neurotransmitter. This is termed recurrent inhibition. It provides inhibitory feedback to the pool of alpha motoneurons to prevent excessive output.

Ia afferent. The Ia afferent comes from the muscle spindle and provides a sensitive measure of muscle stretch. It synapses monosynaptically with excitation onto the alpha motoneuron using glutamate as the neurotransmitter and is the substrate of the tendon reflex. Electrical stimulation of the Ia afferents proximal to the muscle spindle produces the H reflex.

Ib afferent. The Ib afferent comes from the Golgi tendon organ and responds to tension of the muscle tendon. It excites the Ib inhibitory interneuron, which in turn inhibits the alpha motoneuron in a disynaptic chain.

Ia afferent from an antagonist muscle. Ia afferents from antagonist muscles excite interneurons in the spinal cord called the Ia inhibitory interneurons. This interneuron provides direct inhibition of the alpha motoneuron disynaptically. Glycine is the neurotransmitter. This is called reciprocal inhibition.

Flexor reflex afferents. Fibers, largely small myelinated and unmyelinated, carrying nociceptive information provide polysynaptic excitation onto the alpha motoneuron. These are the substrate for the flexor reflex.

Presynaptic inhibition. The inhibitory influences described so far are direct on the alpha motoneuron and are largely mediated by the neurotransmitter glycine. Some inhibitory influences, however, are presynaptic on excitatory synapses, such as the Ia afferent synapse. Presynaptic inhibition is commonly mediated by gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA). Some presynaptic inhibition of the Ia afferent synapse is produced by oligosynaptic input from the antagonist Ia afferent. This effect will cause a “second phase” of reciprocal inhibition slightly later than the disynaptic reciprocal inhibition described earlier.

All of these mechanisms can be studied in humans, although often limited to only certain muscles ( ). Such studies have illuminated the pathophysiology of both segmental and suprasegmental movement disorders. The reason that suprasegmental movement disorders can be evaluated with these tests is that supraspinal influences can affect segmental function.

Examples of movement disorders arising from segmental dysfunction that will be discussed in subsequent chapters are listed in Table 2.2 .

Table 2.2
Examples of movement disorders arising from segmental dysfunction
Disorder Mechanism
Tetanus Tetanus toxin blocks the release of GABA and glycine at spinal synapses
Stiff-person syndrome Mainly a disorder of GABA and presynaptic inhibition in the spinal cord
Hereditary hyperekplexia A disorder of glycine receptors with deficient inhibition at multiple synapses, including that from the Ia inhibitory interneuron
GABA, Gamma-aminobutyric acid.

Supraspinal control of the alpha motoneuron

The main supraspinal control comes from the corticospinal tract. Approximately 30% of the corticospinal tract arises from the primary motor cortex, and other significant contributions come from the premotor and sensory cortices. The fibers largely cross in the pyramid, but some remain uncrossed. Some terminate as monosynaptic projections onto alpha motoneurons, and others terminate on interneurons, including those in the dorsal horn. Other cortical neurons project to the basal ganglia, cerebellum, and brainstem, and these structures can also originate spinal projections. Particularly important is the reticular formation that originates several reticulospinal tracts with different functions ( ; ; , ). The nucleus reticularis gigantocellularis mediates some long-loop reflexes and is hyperactive in a form of myoclonus. The nucleus reticularis pontis caudalis mediates the startle reflex. The inhibitory dorsal reticulospinal tract may have particular relevance for spasticity (Takakusaki et al., 2001; ). In conceptualizing the cortical innervation of the reticular formation, it is possible to use the term corticoreticulospinal tract. The rubrospinal tract, originating in the magnocellular division of the red nucleus, although important in lower primates, is absent in humans because the magncellular red nucleus has almost completely disappeared.

Both the basal ganglia circuitry and cerebellar circuitry can be considered as subcortical loops that largely receive information from the cortex and return a majority of the output back to the cortex via the thalamus ( Fig. 2.2 ). As a generality the basal ganglia support movement by facilitating what movements to make, and what not to make, whereas the cerebellum contributes to the timing of movement. Both also have smaller directly descending projections. Although both loops use the thalamus, the relay nuclei are separate, and the loops had been considered to be largely separate. Subsequent data, however, show that the cerebellum and basal ganglia do communicate subcortically ( Fig. 2.3 ) ( ; ; ; ). The function of these connections is not yet clear, but they do indicate some coordination between these important subcortical loops.

Fig. 2.2, The general anatomic pattern for the basal ganglia and cerebellar loops. Both structures receive input from the cortex and feedback via the thalamus. The basal ganglia facilitate movement selection, and the cerebellum aids movement timing.

Fig. 2.3, Interconnections between cerebellum and basal ganglia. Output from the dentate goes via the thalamus to the striatum. Output from the subthalamic nucleus (STN) goes via the pons to the cerebellar cortex.

The basal ganglia

The basal ganglia are of critical importance to many movement disorders, and details of their anatomy are presented in Chapter 3 .

The basal ganglia loop anatomy is complex with many connections, but an old simple model is still popular and does have some heuristic value (Bar-Gad et al., 2003; Wichmann and DeLong, 2003a, 2003b; DeLong and Wichmann, 2007) ( Fig. 2.4A ). In this model there are two pathways that go from the cortex and then back to the cortex. The direct pathway is the putamen, internal division of the globus pallidus (GPi), and thalamus (mainly the Vop nucleus). The indirect pathway is the putamen, external division of the globus pallidus (GPe), subthalamic nucleus (STN), GPi, and thalamus. The substantia nigra pars compacta (SNc) is the source of the important nigrostriatal dopamine pathway and appears to modulate the loop, although not being in the loop itself. The substantia nigra pars reticulata (SNr) has connections similar to those of the GPi, and its function is also similar. The putaminal neurons of the direct pathway have dopamine D2 receptors and are facilitated by dopamine, whereas the putaminal neurons of the indirect pathway have dopamine D1 receptors and are inhibited.

Fig. 2.4, The corticobasal ganglia network. The box and arrow network of the different pathways of the basal ganglia. (A) The early network model based on the work of Albin, DeLong, and Crossman. (B) A more advanced network. Note that what is missing from these diagrams is that the dopaminergic influence is excitatory on the D1 receptors of the direct pathway and inhibitory on the D2 receptors of the indirect pathway. The early model network is in black, and later additions are in green. Glutamatergic synapses are denoted by arrows, GABAergic synapses by circles, and dopaminergic synapses by squares. GPe, Division of the globus pallidus; GPi, internal division of the globus pallidus; SNc, substantia nigra pars compacta; SNr, substantia nigra pars reticulate; STN, subthalamic nucleus.

Fig. 2.4B shows a more complete diagram indicating more connections and some of the complexity. An important addition is the hyperdirect pathway directly from the cortex to the STN. There are also more reciprocal connections and much more connectivity of the GPe ( ). What is not in this diagram are some additional small nuclei such as the pedunculopontine nucleus (PPN), an elongated nucleus in the lateral mesencephalon and pons ( ; ; ), and more will be said of it in Chapter 3 . This nucleus receives output from the STN and GPi and may be important in balance, gait, and sleep regulation.

What do the basal ganglia contribute to movement? There are likely many contributions, to be considered in Chapter 3 , but the topic remains somewhat controversial.

The basal ganglia are anatomically organized to work in a center-surround mechanism. This idea of center-surround organization was one of the possible functions of the basal ganglia circuitry suggested by . This was followed up nicely by , , , who detailed the possible anatomy ( Fig. 2.5 ). The direct pathway has a focused inhibition in the globus pallidus, whereas the STN has divergent excitation. The direct pathway (with two inhibitory synapses) is a net excitatory pathway and the indirect pathway (with three inhibitory synapses) and hyperdirect pathway (with one inhibitory synapse) are net inhibitory pathways. Hence, the direct pathway can be the center and the indirect and hyperdirect pathways the surround of a center-surround mechanism. Such a mechanism should make a movement more selective, similar to how a center-surround mechanism sharpens boundaries in sensory processing ( ).

Fig. 2.5, The figure illustrates how the organization of the basal ganglia can support a center-surround mechanism of motor control. Excitatory synaptic connections are arrows, and inhibitory synaptic connections are circles. The “center” loop (green), including the direct pathway, facilitates movement. Note that in the entire loop, there are two inhibitory neurons, so the net action is facilitation. The “surround” loop (black), including both the indirect and hyperdirect pathways, inhibits movement. The indirect pathway has three inhibitory neurons, and the hyperdirect pathway has one inhibitory neuron, so the net action of both is inhibition. The center loop works by reducing inhibitory influence on the thalamus; the surround loop works by increasing inhibitory influence on the thalamus. GPe, Division of the globus pallidus; GPi, internal division of the globus pallidus; STN, subthalamic nucleus.

Whether or not the basal ganglia work in a center-surround fashion, there is evidence that the direct pathway does indeed facilitate movement and the indirect pathway inhibits movement. DA excites the direct pathway striatal neurons via the D1 receptors and should facilitate movement, whereas DA inhibits the indirect pathway striatal neurons mediated by the D2 receptors and should reduce movement. D1 and D2 receptors have been activated separately using optogenetic techniques in the mouse and have produced the expected effects on spontaneous movements in the cage ( ). Again, using optogenetic methods, stimulating projection neurons of the direct pathway generally produce opposite effects in the motor cortex to stimulating projection neurons of the indirect pathway ( ; ).

Basal ganglia disorders are characterized by a wide variety of movement signs and symptoms. Often they are divided into hypokinetic and hyperkinetic varieties, implying too little movement on the one hand and too much movement on the other. A full listing of these disorders is in Chapter 1 . Here, the pathophysiology of Parkinson disease (PD) and dystonia will be emphasized. We try to explain the abnormalities with reference to the known circuitry, but this is not always easy to do ( ).

Parkinson disease

PD is classically characterized by bradykinesia, rigidity, and tremor-at-rest. Bradykinesia and rigidity seem mainly to result from the degeneration of the nigrostriatal pathway, whereas tremor is only partly the result of this and has other influences that are not well understood. Because of the multiplicity of degenerations, it has not been possible to find a single underlying pathophysiologic mechanism that explains everything. Nevertheless, considerable data are available that give separate understanding to each of the three classic features ( ; ; ; ).

Bradykinesia

The most important functional disturbance in patients with PD is a disorder of voluntary movement prominently characterized by slowness. This phenomenon is generally called bradykinesia, although it has at least two components, which can be designated as bradykinesia and akinesia ( ; ; ; ). Bradykinesia refers to ongoing slowness of movement. Akinesia refers to failure of willed movement to occur. There are two possible reasons for the absence of expected movement. One is that the movement is so slow (and small) that it cannot be seen. A second is that the time needed to initiate the movement becomes excessively long.

Although self-paced movements can give information about bradykinesia, the study of reaction time movements can yield information about both akinesia and bradykinesia. In the reaction time situation, a stimulus is presented to a subject, and the subject must make a movement as rapidly as possible. The time between the stimulus and the start of movement is the reaction time; the time from initiation to completion of movement is the movement time. Using this logic, prolongation of reaction time is akinesia, and prolongation of movement time is bradykinesia. Studies of patients with PD confirm that both reaction time and movement time are prolonged. However, the extent of abnormality of one does not necessarily correlate with the extent of abnormality of the other ( ). This suggests that they may be impaired by separable physiologic mechanisms. In general, prolongation of movement time (bradykinesia) is better correlated with the clinical impression of slowness than is prolongation of reaction time (akinesia).

Some contributing features of bradykinesia are established. One is that there is a failure to energize muscles up to the level necessary to complete a movement in a standard amount of time. This has been demonstrated clearly with attempted rapid, monophasic movements at a single joint ( ). In this circumstance, movements of different angular distances are accomplished in approximately the same time by making longer movements faster. The electromyographic (EMG) activity underlying the movement begins with a burst of activity in the agonist muscle of 50 to 100 ms, followed by a burst of activity in the antagonist muscle of 50 to 100 ms, followed variably by a third burst of activity in the agonist. This “triphasic” pattern has relatively fixed timing with movements of different distance, correlating with the fact of similar total time for movements of different distance. Different distances are accomplished by altering the magnitude of the EMG within the fixed duration burst. The pattern is correct in PD patients, but there is insufficient EMG activity in the burst to accomplish the movement. These patients often must go through two or more cycles of the triphasic pattern to accomplish the movement. Interestingly, such activity looks virtually identical to the tremor-at-rest seen in these patients. The longer the desired movement, the more likely it is to require additional cycles. These findings have been reproduced, including by Baroni and colleagues ( ), who also showed that levodopa normalized the pattern and reduced the number of bursts.

showed that PD patients could vary the size and duration of the first agonist EMG burst with movement size and added load in the normal way. However, there was a failure to match these parameters appropriately to the size of movement required. This suggests an additional problem in scaling of actual movement to the required movement. A problem in sensory scaling of kinesthesia was demonstrated by . PD patients used kinesthetic perception to estimate the amplitude of passive angular displacements of the index finger about the metacarpophalangeal joint and to scale them as a percentage of a reference stimulus. The reference stimulus was either a standard kinesthetic stimulus preceding each test stimulus (task K) or a visual representation of the standard kinesthetic stimulus (task V). The PD patients’ underestimation of the amplitudes of finger perturbations was significantly greater in task V than in task K. Thus, when kinesthesia is used to match a visual target, distances are perceived to be shorter by the PD patients. Assuming that visual perception is normal, kinesthesia must be “reduced” in PD patients. This reduced kinesthesia, when combined with the well-known reduced motor output and probably reduced corollary discharges, implies that the sensorimotor apparatus is “set” smaller in PD patients than in normal subjects.

In a slower, multijoint movement task, PD patients show a reduced rate of rise of muscle activity that also implies deficient activation ( ). On the other hand, showed that release of force was just as slowed as increase of force, suggesting that slowness to change and not deficient energization was the main problem. If termination of activity is an active process, this finding really does not argue against deficient energization.

A second physiologic mechanism of bradykinesia is that there is difficulty with simultaneous and sequential movements ( ). That PD patients have more difficulty with simultaneous movements than with isolated movements was first pointed out by . Quantitative studies show that slowness in accomplishing simultaneous or sequential movements is more than would be predicted from the slowness of each individual movement. With sequential movements, there is another parameter of interest, the time between the two movements designated the interonset latency (IOL) by Benecke and colleagues ( ). The IOL is also prolonged in patients with PD. This problem, similar to the problem with simple movements, also can be interpreted as insufficient motor energy.

Akinesia would seem to be multifactorial, and a number of contributing factors are already known. As noted earlier, one type of akinesia is the limit of bradykinesia from the point of view of energizing muscles. If the muscle is selected but not energized, then there will be no movement. Such phenomena can be recognized on some occasions with EMG studies in which EMG activity will be initiated but will be insufficient to move the body part. Another type of akinesia, again as noted previously, is prolongation of reaction time; the patient is preparing to move, but the movement has not yet occurred. Considerable attention has been paid to mechanisms of prolongation of reaction time. One factor is easily demonstrable in patients with rest tremor, who appear to have to wait to initiate the movement together with a beat of tremor in the agonist muscle of the willed movement ( ; ).

Another mechanism of prolongation of reaction time can be seen in those circumstances in which eye movement must be coordinated with limb movement ( ). In this situation, there is a visual target that moves into the periphery of the visual field. Normally, there is a coordinated movement of eyes and limb, the eyes beginning slightly earlier. In PD, some patients do not begin to move the limb until the eye movement is completed. This might be due to a problem with simultaneous movements, as noted earlier. Alternatively, it might be that PD patients need to foveate a target before they are able to move to it.

Many studies have evaluated reaction time quantitatively with neuropsychological methods ( ; ). The goal of these studies is to determine the abnormalities in the motor processes that must occur before a movement can be initiated. To understand reaction time studies, it is useful to consider from a theoretical point of view the tasks that the brain must accomplish. The starting point is the “set” for the movement. This includes the environmental conditions, initial positions of body parts, understanding the nature of the experiment, and, in particular, some understanding of the expected movement. In some circumstances, the expected movement is described completely, without ambiguity. This is the “simple reaction time” condition. The movement can be fully planned. It then needs to be held in store until the stimulus comes to initiate the execution of the movement. In other circumstances, the set does not include a complete description of the required movement. It is intended that the description be completed at the time of the stimulus that calls for the movement initiation. This is the “choice reaction time” condition. In this circumstance, the programming of the movement occurs between the stimulus and the response. Choice reaction time is always longer than simple reaction, and the time difference is due to this movement programming.

In most studies, simple reaction time is significantly prolonged in patients compared with normal subjects ( ). On the other hand, patients appear to have near-normal choice reaction times or the increase of choice reaction time over simple reaction time is similar in patients and normal subjects. The study of choice reaction times was extended by considering three different choice reaction time tasks that required the same simple movement but differed in the difficulty of the decision of which movement to make ( ). Comparing PD patients to normal subjects, the patients had a longer reaction time in all three conditions, but the difference was largest when the task was the easiest and smallest when the task was the most difficult. Thus, the greater the proportion of time there is in the reaction time devoted to motor program selection, the closer to normal are the PD results. Assuming that the motor programming and motor execution proceed in parallel, the difficulty must be in execution. This result is also compatible with the result from some studies that patients do not have much slowness of thinking, called bradyphrenia ( ). However, careful studies have shown that even nondemented PD patients may have some bradyphrenia ( ; ).

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) can be used to study the initiation of execution. With low levels of TMS, it is possible to find a level that will not produce any motor evoked potentials (MEPs) at rest but will produce an MEP when there is voluntary activation. Using such a stimulus in a reaction time situation between the stimulus to move and the response, showed that stimulation close to movement onset would produce a response even though there was still no voluntary EMG activity. A small response first appeared about 80 ms before EMG onset and grew in magnitude closer to onset. This method divides the reaction time into two periods. In the first period, the motor cortex remains “unexcitable”; in the second, the cortex becomes increasingly “excitable” as it prepares to trigger the movement. Most of the prolongation of the reaction time appeared because of prolongation of the later period of rising excitability ( ; ). The finding of prolonged initiation time in PD patients is supported by studies of motor cortex neuronal activity in reaction time movements in monkeys rendered parkinsonian with 1-methyl-4-phenyl-1,2,3,6-tetrahydropyridine (MPTP) ( ). In these investigations, there was a prolonged time between initial activation of motor cortex neurons and movement onset.

Thus, an important component of akinesia is the difficulty in initiating a planned movement. This statement would not be a surprise to PD patients, who often say that they know what they want to do, but they just cannot do it. A major problem in bradykinesia is a deficiency in activation of muscles, whereas the problem in akinesia seems to be a deficiency in activation of motor cortex. The dopaminergic system apparently provides energy to many different motor tasks, and the deficiency of this system in PD leads to both bradykinesia and akinesia.

Another factor that should be kept in mind is that patients appear to have much more difficulty initiating internally triggered movements than externally triggered movements. This is clear clinically in that external cues are often helpful in movement initiation. Examples include improving walking by providing an object to step over or playing march music. This also can be demonstrated in the laboratory with a variety of paradigms ( ; ; ; ).

There are other interesting features of bradykinesia. The sequence effect is the gradual reduction in size of repetitive movements ( ). An example is in handwriting, which is not only small (micrographia) but often reduces in size. Another example is progressive shortening of steps in gait that precede a freeze. The sequence effect can be present early in patients with PD, and it does not seem to be responsive to dopamine ( , ) and may have to do with the cumulative energetic cost of movement ( ). Another feature is the loss of automaticity; patients cannot carry out tasks automatically, but rather they have to continue to think about them ( ). There is evidence that the sequence effect is due to problems with a cerebellar-cortical circuit ( ).

How does bradykinesia arise from dysfunction of the nigrostriatal pathway? Thinking about the simple basal ganglia diagram, dopamine facilitates the direct pathway and inhibits the indirect pathway. Loss of dopamine will lead to lack of facilitation of movement in both pathways. This could certainly be represented by bradykinesia. This has been referred to as a loss of “motor motivation” ( ). The origin of rigidity and tremor is less understandable, but also less directly linked to dopamine deficiency clinically ( ; ; ).

Rigidity

Tone is defined as the resistance to passive stretch. Rigidity is one form of increased tone that is seen in disorders of the basal ganglia (“extrapyramidal disorders”) and is particularly prominent in PD. Increased tone can result from changes in (1) muscle properties or joint characteristics, (2) amount of background contraction of the muscle, and (3) magnitude of stretch reflexes. There is evidence for all three of these aspects contributing to rigidity. For quantitative purposes, responses can be measured to controlled stretches delivered by devices that contain torque motors. The stretch can be produced by altering the torque of the motor or by altering the position of the shaft of the motor. The perturbation can be a single step or more complex, such as a sinusoid. The mechanical response of the limb can be measured: the positional change if the motor alters force or the force change if the motor alters position. Such mechanical measurements can directly mimic and quantify the clinical impression ( ; ).

Patients with PD do not relax well and often have slight contraction at rest. This is a standard clinical and electrophysiologic observation, and it is clear that this mechanism plays an important part in rigidity.

There are increases in long-latency reflexes in PD patients. Generally, this is neurophysiologically distinct from the increases in the short-latency reflexes seen in spasticity, the increase in tone of the “pyramidal” type. The short-latency reflex is the monosynaptic reflex. Reflexes occurring at a longer latency than this are designated long latency. When a relaxed muscle is stretched, in general only a short-latency reflex is produced. When a muscle is stretched while it is active, one or more distinct long-latency reflexes are produced after the short-latency reflex and before the time needed to produce a voluntary response to the stretch. These reflexes are recognized as separate because of brief time gaps between them, giving rise to the appearance of distinct “humps” on a rectified EMG trace. Each component reflex, either short or long in latency, has about the same duration, approximately 20 to 40 ms. They appear to be true reflexes in that their appearance and magnitude depend primarily on the amount of background force that the muscle was exerting at the time of the stretch and the mechanical parameters of the stretch; they do not vary much with whatever the patient might want to do after experiencing the muscle stretch. By contrast, the voluntary response that occurs after a reaction time from the stretch stimulus depends strongly on the will of the individual.

Long-latency reflexes are best brought out with controlled stretches with a device such as a torque motor. Although long-latency reflexes are normally absent at rest, they are prominent in PD patients ( ; ). Long-latency reflexes are also enhanced in PD with background contraction. Because some long-latency stretch reflexes appear to be mediated by a loop through the sensory and motor cortices, the enhancement of long-latency reflexes has been generally thought to indicate increased excitability of this central loop.

There is some evidence that at least one component of the increased long-latency stretch reflex in PD is a group II–mediated reflex. This suggestion was first made by on the basis of physiologic features, including insensitivity to vibration. It was subsequently supported by the observation that an enhanced late stretch reflex response could not be duplicated with a vibration stimulus ( ). Some studies show a correlation between clinically measured increased tone and the magnitude of long-latency reflexes ( ), whereas others do not ( ; ). Long-latency reflexes contribute significantly to rigidity but are apparently not completely responsible for it.

Classic Parkinson tremor

The classic tremor of PD is often called tremor-at-rest; it also can be seen in other parkinsonian states such as those produced by neuroleptics or other dopamine-blocking agents ( ; ; ; ). It is present at rest, disappears with action (pause), but may resume with static posture, when it is called reemergent tremor ( ). That the tremor may also be present during postural maintenance is a significant point of confusion in regard to naming this tremor a tremor-at-rest. It can involve all parts of the body and can be markedly asymmetrical, but it is most typical with a flexion–extension movement at the elbow, pronation and supination of the forearm, and movements of the thumb across the fingers (“pill-rolling”). Its frequency is 3 to 7 Hz but is most commonly 4 or 5 Hz; EMG studies show alternating activity in antagonist muscles.

The anatomic basis of the tremor-at-rest may well differ from the classic neuropathologic finding of PD, that of degeneration of the nigrostriatal pathway. For example, 18F-dopa uptake in the caudate and putamen declines with bradykinesia and rigidity but is unassociated with degree of tremor ( ). However, there might be a relationship to dopamine innervation of the globus pallidus, as shown with dopamine single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) ( ; ). Evidence from positron emission tomography (PET) studies suggests that tremor may be associated with a serotonergic deficiency ( ; ). Another point in favor of this idea is that the tremor may be successfully treated with a stereotactic lesion or deep brain stimulation of the ventral intermediate (VIM) nucleus of the thalamus, a cerebellar relay nucleus. Interestingly, tremors can be divided into two groups, one group is at least somewhat dopamine responsive, the other is not ( ).

Although cells in the globus pallidus may have oscillatory activity, they are not as strongly related to the tremor as the cells in the VIM of the thalamus ( ; ). Zirh and colleagues studied the physiologic properties of cells in the VIM in relation to tremor production ( ). They have tried to see if the pattern of spike activity is consistent with specific hypotheses. They examined whether parkinsonian tremor might be produced by the activity of an intrinsic thalamic pacemaker or by the oscillation of an unstable long-loop reflex arc. In one study of 42 cells, 11 with a sensory feedback pattern, 1 with a pacemaker pattern, 21 with a completely random pattern, and 9 that did not fit any pattern were found ( ). Using sophisticated analytical techniques, it can be demonstrated that oscillations both in the VIM and the STN play an efferent role in tremor generation, but that the tremor itself feeds back to these same structures to influence the oscillation ( ). This does suggest that in some sense the whole loop is responsible for the tremor, and it is possible to see evidence for that with PET scanning ( ) and magnetoencephalography (MEG) ( ). The basal ganglia loop may well trigger the cerebellar loop to produce the tremor ( ).

Wherever the pacemaker for the tremor, it is important to note that whereas the tremor is synchronous within a limb, it is not synchronous between limbs ( ). Hence, a single pacemaker does not influence the whole body.

There are other types of tremor in PD, including an action tremor that resembles essential tremor ( ). The latter has a faster frequency than the classic tremor-at-rest and is not dopa-responsive.

Dystonia

Dystonia is characterized by abnormal muscle spasms producing distorted motor control and undesired postures ( ; ; ; ; ). Early on, dystonia is produced only by action, but then it can occur spontaneously. There are presently three general lines of work that may indicate the physiologic substrate for dystonia.

Loss of inhibition

A principal finding in focal dystonia is loss of inhibition ( ; ; ). Loss of inhibition is likely responsible for the excessive movement seen in dystonia patients. Excessive movement includes abnormally long bursts of EMG activity, co-contraction of antagonist muscles, and overflow of activity into muscles not intended for the task. Loss of inhibition can be demonstrated in spinal and brainstem reflexes. Examples are the loss of reciprocal inhibition in the arm in patients with focal hand dystonia and abnormalities of blink reflex recovery in blepharospasm. Loss of reciprocal inhibition can be partly responsible for the presence of co-contraction of antagonist muscles that characterizes voluntary movement in dystonia.

Loss of inhibition also can be demonstrated for motor cortical function, including the TMS techniques of short intracortical inhibition (SICI), long intracortical inhibition (LICI), and the silent period (SP) ( ; ).

SICI is obtained with paired pulse methods and reflects interneuron influences in the cortex ( ; ). In such studies, an initial conditioning stimulus is given, enough to activate cortical neurons but small enough that no descending influence on the spinal cord can be detected. A second test stimulus, at suprathreshold level, follows at a short interval. Intracortical influences initiated by the conditioning stimulus modulate the amplitude of the MEP produced by the test stimulus. At short intervals, less than 5 ms, there is inhibition that is likely largely a GABAergic effect, specifically GABA-A ( ). (At intervals between 8 and 30 ms, there is facilitation, called intracortical facilitation). There is a loss of intracortical inhibition in patients with focal hand dystonia ( ; ). Inhibition was less in both hemispheres of patients with focal hand dystonia, and this indicates that this abnormality is more consistent as a substrate for dystonia.

The SP is a pause in ongoing voluntary EMG activity produced by TMS. The first part of the SP is due in part to spinal cord refractoriness, and the latter part is entirely due to cortical inhibition ( ). This type of inhibition is likely mediated by GABA-B receptors ( ). SICI and the SP show different modulation in different circumstances and clearly reflect different aspects of cortical inhibition. The SP is shortened in focal dystonia.

Intracortical inhibition also can be assessed with paired suprathreshold TMS pulses at intervals from 50 to 200 ms. This is called LICI, to differentiate it from SICI, as noted previously. LICI and SICI differ as demonstrated by the facts that with increasing test pulse strength, LICI decreases but SICI tends to increase and that there is no correlation between the degree of SICI and LICI in different individuals ( ). The mechanisms of LICI and the SP may be similar in that both seem to depend on GABA-B receptors. investigated long intracortical inhibition in patients with writer’s cramp and found a deficiency only in the symptomatic hand and only with background contraction. This abnormality is particularly interesting because it is restricted to the symptomatic setting, and therefore might be a correlate of the development of the dystonia.

There is also neuroimaging evidence consistent with a loss of inhibition. Dopamine D2 receptors are deficient in focal dystonias ( ; ). There is weak evidence for reduced GABA concentration both in basal ganglia and motor cortex using magnetic resonance spectroscopy ( ; ), but PET scanning with flumazenil, which binds to the GABA receptor, is decreased in several regions in patients with dystonia ( ; ).

Loss of cortical inhibition in the motor cortex can give rise to dystonic-like movements in primates. showed that local application of bicuculline, a GABA antagonist, onto the motor cortex led to disordered movement and changed the movement pattern from reciprocal inhibition of antagonist muscles to co-contraction . In a second study, they showed that bicuculline caused cells to lose their crisp directionality, converted unidirectional cells to bidirectional cells, and increased firing rates of most cells, including making silent cells into active ones ( ).

There is a valuable animal model for blepharospasm that supports the idea of a combination of genetics and environment, and, specifically, that the background for the development of dystonia could be a loss of inhibition ( ). In this model, rats were lesioned to cause a depletion of dopamine, which reduces inhibition. Then the orbicularis oculi muscle was weakened. This causes an increase in the blink reflex drive to produce an adequate blink. Together, but not separately, these two interventions produced spasms of eyelid closure, similar to blepharospasm. Shortly after the animal model was presented, several patients with blepharospasm after Bell palsy were reported ( ; ). This could be a human analog of the animal experiments. The idea is that those patients who developed blepharospasm were in some way predisposed. A gold weight implanted into the weak lid of one patient, aiding lid closure, improved the condition, suggesting that when the abnormal increase in reflex drive was removed, the dystonia could be ameliorated ( ).

Loss of surround inhibition, a functional consequence of loss of inhibition

A principle for function of the motor system may be “surround inhibition” ( ; ). Surround inhibition is a concept well accepted in sensory physiology to sharpen visual perception. When making a movement, the brain must activate the desired movement, and it appears that, simultaneously, other possible movements are suppressed. The suppression of unwanted movements would be surround inhibition, and this should produce a more precise movement. For dystonia, a failure of surround inhibition may be particularly important because overflow movement is often seen and is a principal abnormality.

There is good evidence for surround inhibition in human movement. Sohn and associates (2003) demonstrated that with movement of one finger there is widespread inhibition of muscles in the contralateral limb. Sohn and associates have shown that there is some inhibition of muscles in the ipsilateral limb when those muscles are not involved in any way in the movement ( ). MEPs from abductor digiti minimi were slightly suppressed during the movement of the index finger in the face of increased F-wave amplitude and persistence, indicating that cortical excitability is reduced. There appears to be a role for the parietal area in producing surround inhibition ( ).

Surround inhibition was studied similarly in patients with focal hand dystonia ( ). The MEPs were enhanced similarly in the flexor digitorum superficialis and abductor digiti minimi, indicating a failure of surround inhibition. Using other experimental paradigms, a similar loss of surround inhibition in the hand has been found ( ; ; ; ). Making a long term depression-like plastic change to dorsal inferior parietal lobule, an area playing a role in surround inhibition, ameliorates some of the physiological abnormalities in writer’s cramp ( ).

How can the abnormalities of dystonia be related to the basal ganglia? This is not completely clear, but, as pointed out earlier, the organization of the basal ganglia should be able to support surround inhibition in motor control. Some investigators think there is an imbalance in the direct and indirect pathways so that the direct pathway is relatively overactive or that the indirect pathway is relatively underactive. Indeed, there is evidence for this with a decrease of D2 receptors and an increase of D1 receptors in the putamen in patients with focal dystonia ( ; ). This should lead to excessive movement and, in particular, a loss of surround inhibition.

You're Reading a Preview

Become a Clinical Tree membership for Full access and enjoy Unlimited articles

Become membership

If you are a member. Log in here