MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2566225367 · doi:10.1093/brain/aww292

Reply: Contributions of visual and motor signals in cervical dystonia

2016· letter· en· W2566225367 sur OpenAlexaff
Aasef G. Shaikh, David S. Zee, J. Douglas Crawford, Hyder A. Jinnah

Notice bibliographique

RevueBrain · 2016
Typeletter
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueNeurological disorders and treatments
Établissements canadiensYork University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésGazeProprioceptionTrunkVisual fieldCervical dystoniaPsychologyNeuroscienceComputer visionPhysical medicine and rehabilitationComputer scienceDystoniaMedicineBiology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Sir, We appreciate the thoughtful comments from Amlang and colleagues regarding our recent viewpoint (Shaikh et al., 2016). They raise the important point that the neural integrator responsible for controlling head position relies on visual feedback in addition to feedback from the cerebellum, proprioceptors, and the basal ganglia. To address these ideas Amlang and colleagues analysed the ‘straight-ahead preference’ in subjects with cervical dystonia and compared it with that of healthy subjects. Two conditions schematizing ‘straight-ahead preference’. In Condition 1 the subject is moving straight ahead (direction of grey thick arrow), and also looking straight ahead. The target (red object) appearing on the subject’s left is projected to retinal orientation r1 in both eyes. In Condition 2 the subject is moving straight ahead (direction of grey thick arrow) but the eyes are turned to the right. The target (red object) appears straight ahead, but its image is still on the same retinal location (r1) in both eyes. The reaction time is shorter in Condition 2 compared to Condition 1 because the image of the novel target could represent an obstacle in front of the subject. The elegant experiments by Amlang and colleagues (2017) provide proof of such a principle. They found an overall increase in reaction time in subjects with cervical dystonia. The reaction time to the peripheral target location that was in line with the sagittal plane passing through the head was still less compared to a peripheral target that was eccentric compared to the head. It was unclear whether impaired visuospatial processing in cervical dystonia is the cause or consequence of these phenomena. The authors now speculate that altered visual input can affect the function of a presumed head neural integrator. We agree with this possibility as an additional mechanism for an impaired head neural integrator. Here we offer another insight on how impaired neural integration affects visuospatial processing and reaction times. Organization of the cortical coordinate transformation system, and the influence of the position of the eyes and the head neural integrator on determination of the body-fixed coordinate of the target. These results can be explained given not only the head neural integrator hypothesis, but in general as a consequence of motor uncertainty or a mismatch between the efferent motor output and the efference copy being used for transformations. There are two ways the brain receives head-on-trunk orientation. One is via an efference copy from the neural integrator and the other is from proprioceptive afference. Impairment in a head neural integrator could interfere with processing of both types of information. As a result, the position signals necessary for coordinate transformations become less faithful, possibly more noisy and consequently increase the chances of inaccuracy. To compensate for this potential for error the reaction time could be increased to give the brain more time to become more certain of the needed response. It is also possible, however, that the head neural integrator has little role in such a phenomenon and that the increase in the reaction time is merely due to extraneous ‘noise’ in proprioceptive muscle output in cervical dystonia. In such a situation, one might expect an indirect modulation of the output from the head neural integrator. Subjects with cervical dystonia often present with a jerky head tremor (Shaikh et al., 2008, 2013, 2015). These head oscillations and consequent eye oscillations (due to a tremor-induced but normal vestibulo-ocular reflex response) lead to a constantly changing head-on-trunk orientation and eye-in-orbit position. As a result, there is a discrepancy as the target image on the retina remains stable, but the head-on-trunk and eye-in-head orientations are constantly in flux. Such extraneous signals could also increase motor uncertainty and increase reaction time. Several other studies suggested that visual-spatial orientation is disrupted in cervical dystonia (Anastasopoulos et al., 1997a, b, 1998; Muller et al., 2005) showing that the perception of visual-spatial orientation is referenced to the head in normal subjects, while in cervical dystonia it is shifted to the trunk. In summary, we agree with the possibility that abnormal visuospatial processing could contribute to dysfunction of the head neural integrator. However, it is also plausible that dysfunction of the head neural integrator itself can also affect visuospatial coordinate transformations. This concept is consistent with the notion that cervical dystonia is not a disorder localized to a single brain region, but instead is a consequence of widespread impairment in a neural network responsible for sensorimotor integration. With the considerable complexity of these neural networks controlling the position of the head, disentangling the core deficit causing cervical dystonia remains a challenge. Nevertheless, the concept of a head neural integrator provides a conceptual model that may help to guide further studies of the pathophysiology of this disorder.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,004
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: Commentaire
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,025
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,019

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0040,030
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,003
Communication savante0,0020,004
Science ouverte0,0030,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0250,031
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0040,004

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,015
Tête enseignante GPT0,298
Écart entre enseignants0,283 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreCommentaire

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations3
Publié2016
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBrainMême sujetNeurological disorders and treatmentsTravaux en français237 207