Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29606416›Full record

ArticleCurrent biology : CB2018

Mechanisms Underlying Decision-Making as Revealed by Deep-Brain Stimulation in Patients with Parkinson's Disease.

Damian M Herz, Simon Little, David J Pedrosa, Gerd Tinkhauser, Binith Cheeran, Tom Foltynie, Rafal Bogacz, Peter Brown

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Current biology : CB, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

48 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Reactive Inhibitory Control Precedes Overt Stuttering Events.Neurobiology of language (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2024
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Damian M HerzMRC Brain Network Dynamics Unit at the University of Oxford, Mansfield Road, Oxford OX1 3TH, UK; Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Level 6, West Wing, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford OX3 9DU, UK.
Simon LittleSobell Department of Motor Neuroscience and Movement Disorders, University College London Institute of Neurology, 33 Queen Square, London WC1N 3BG, UK.
David J PedrosaMRC Brain Network Dynamics Unit at the University of Oxford, Mansfield Road, Oxford OX1 3TH, UK; Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Level 6, West Wing, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford OX3 9DU, UK; Department of Neurology, University Hospital Marburg, Baldingerstrasse, 35043 Marburg, Germany.
Gerd TinkhauserMRC Brain Network Dynamics Unit at the University of Oxford, Mansfield Road, Oxford OX1 3TH, UK; Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Level 6, West Wing, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford OX3 9DU, UK; Department of Neurology, Bern University Hospital, Freiburgstrasse, 3010 Bern, Switzerland.
Binith CheeranNuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Level 6, West Wing, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford OX3 9DU, UK.
Tom FoltynieSobell Department of Motor Neuroscience and Movement Disorders, University College London Institute of Neurology, 33 Queen Square, London WC1N 3BG, UK.
Rafal BogaczMRC Brain Network Dynamics Unit at the University of Oxford, Mansfield Road, Oxford OX1 3TH, UK; Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Level 6, West Wing, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford OX3 9DU, UK.
Peter BrownMRC Brain Network Dynamics Unit at the University of Oxford, Mansfield Road, Oxford OX1 3TH, UK; Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Level 6, West Wing, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford OX3 9DU, UK. Electronic address: peter.brown@ndcn.ox.ac.uk.

Funding

Department of HealthMedical Research Council MC_UU_12024/1Medical Research Council MC_UU_12024/5
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To optimally balance opposing demands of speed and accuracy during decision-making, we must flexibly adapt how much evidence we require before making a choice. Such adjustments in decision thresholds have been linked to the subthalamic nucleus (STN), and therapeutic STN deep-brain stimulation (DBS) has been shown to interfere with this function. Here, we performed continuous as well as closed-loop DBS of the STN while Parkinson's disease patients performed a perceptual decision-making task. Closed-loop STN DBS allowed temporally patterned STN stimulation and simultaneous recordings of STN activity. This revealed that DBS only affected patients' ability to adjust decision thresholds if applied in a specific temporally confined time window during deliberation. Only stimulation in that window diminished the normal slowing of response times that occurred on difficult trials when DBS was turned off. Furthermore, DBS eliminated a relative, time-specific increase in STN beta oscillations and compromised its functional relationship with trial-by-trial adjustments in decision thresholds. Together, these results provide causal evidence that the STN is involved in adjusting decision thresholds in distinct, time-limited processing windows during deliberation.

Indexed as

AgedCognitionDecision MakingDeep Brain StimulationFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedParkinson DiseaseReaction TimeSubthalamic Nucleusbetadecision-makingdecision thresholddeep-brain stimulationdrift diffusion modelParkinson’s diseasesubthalamic nucleus

Identifiers

PMID29606416
PMCPMC5912902

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.