Does unilateral basal ganglia activity functionally influence the contralateral side? What we can learn from STN stimulation in patients with Parkinson's disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In humans, the control of voluntary movement, in which the corticobasal ganglia (BG) circuitry participates, is mainly lateralized. However, several studies have suggested that both the contralateral and ipsilateral BG systems are implicated during unilateral movement. Bilateral improvement of motor signs in patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) has been reported with unilateral lesion or high-frequency stimulation (HFS) of the internal part of the globus pallidus or the subthalamic nucleus (STN-HFS). To decipher the mechanisms of production of ipsilateral movements induced by the modulation of unilateral BG circuitry activity, we recorded left STN neuronal activity during right STN-HFS in PD patients operated for bilateral deep brain stimulation. Left STN single cells were recorded in the operating room during right STN-HFS while patients experienced, or did not experience, right stimulation-induced dyskinesias. Most of the left-side STN neurons (64%) associated with the presence of right dyskinesias were inhibited, with a significant decrease in burst and intraburst frequencies. In contrast, left STN neurons not associated with right dyskinesias were mainly activated (48%), with a predominant increase 4-5 ms after the stimulation pulse and a decrease in oscillatory activity. This suggests that unilateral neuronal STN modulation is associated with changes in the activity of the contralateral STN. The fact that one side of the BG system can influence the functioning of the other could explain the occurrence of bilateral dyskinesias and motor improvement observed in PD patients during unilateral STN-HFS, as a result of a bilateral disruption of the pathological activity in the corticosubcortical circuitry.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".