Symptoms of Parkinson’s Disease

Parkinson’s disease (PD) affects an estimated 1.5 million Americans and about 2% of people over 65 in the U.K. Its prevalence increases with age, although roughly 15% of Americans with Parkinson’s disease are 50 or younger. Parkinson’s disease is part of a broader spectrum of disorders known as parkinsonism. While it was viewed as fairly homogeneous in the past, researchers and clinicians now recognize the complexity of the disease and its related diseases.

The defining neurological marker of Parkinson’s disease is the destruction of the substantia nigra pars compacta, a small nucleus in the brain that is one of the major dopamine-producing brain areas. Symptoms of PD are not evident until around 80% of the neurons in the substantia nigra (literally translated as “black substance”) are destroyed. Because the substantia nigra produces dopamine, which is an important neurotransmitter, the depletion of dopamine in the brain that is associated with PD affects the striatum, which in part suppresses the subthalamic nucleus. This in turn results in more activity in the globus pallidus and substantia nigra pars reticulata, which in the end leads to more activation of the inhibitory thalamic nuclei that are involved in motor functioning. To summarize, decreased dopamine results in decreased motor activation as well as other motor problems.

The common features of Parkinson’s disease are easily remembered by the mnemonic TRAP.

  1. T – Tremor, specifically resting tremor. Tremor that occurs when moving (e.g., reaching for an object) is called essential tremor and is not a defining characteristic of PD; in fact, it is a different but related disorder.
  2. R – Rigidity. Difficulty moving and stiff arms and limbs.
  3. A – Akinesia. No or slow movements.
  4. P – Postural instability. Posture problems.

Gait abnormalities is also one of the common features of PD. It is especially useful for detecting the disease early in the process. The common gait problems are decrease height and length of step and less arm swing (i.e., walking more with a shuffle than a normal gait). People with PD also often take very small steps when turning around.

PD patients often have difficulty swallowing saliva so they often drool. They also often have micrography (very small writing) that progressively gets smaller with prolonged writing. Depression is common in PD patients as well. If given levodopa (L-dopa) they will respond. Symptoms of dementia often occur as well but they usually occur after a few years post diagnosis. However, there are often more mild cognitive changes early on in the disease process, such as slowed processing speed and slowed reaction time.

Reference

Approach to diagnosis of Parkinson disease (C. Frank, G. Pari, & J. P. Rossiter, 2006). Canadian Family Physician, 52, 862-868.

The Guillotine and Neuroscience

The air was chilly in 19th Century Paris as a criminal was led to his fate. A GuillotineThe man had committed a crime and was sentenced to pay. A crowd gathered to watch his punishment. There standing before him was the fateful Madame, the progeny of a French engineer. This Woman with the acerbic jaw was to seal the criminal’s fate. He faced the crowd wide-eyed and fearful, pleading for his life. His pleas seemed to fall on deaf ears as the frenzied crowd prepared for the spectacle. A German man stood waiting to play his part. Theodor Bischoff was not there to enjoy the public execution, he was there in the name of science. As the executioner led the criminal to the apparatus named after Joseph Guillotin (who by the way did not invent the guillotine), Bischoff approached. The blade fell and the criminal’s head dropped to the ground. Bischoff quickly rushed over to the head to perform his experiment.

Bischoff wanted to know whether or not consciousness was centered in the head – in the brain – and if any awareness resided after the beheading. He quickly thrust his fingers at the poor criminal’s eyes to see if there was any eye-blink. There was none. He placed smelling salts under the nose, with no reaction. Finally he spoke the word, “Pardon!” into an ear. Again, no response. He was satisfied with the results and concluded that consciousness did in fact reside in the brain and that it ended when the head was severed. His early neuroscience experiment was complete.

While this approach seems unorthodox at best today, early researchers had to resort sometimes to interesting techniques in order to investigate the influence of the brain on behavior, emotions, and consciousness. Their research methods were often seriously flawed but the work they did was important. Each new discovery led to our current understanding of the brain. So while we have much better methods to research the brain than antagonizing disembodied heads, our current research as neuropsychologists and neuroscientists is founded on the research of such creative men as Bischoff.

Note: I dramatized the story and as such, it is a bit of historical fiction. I don’t know if Bischoff was in Paris, he might have been in Germany when he did the experiment. However, Bischoff did perform this experiment.

Posts, website updates, and school

I’m in the process of redesigning the website. It might take me a month or two to complete as this is a very busy semester for me. I will try to keep posts coming but I probably can’t write more than one post per week between classes, research, clinic work, and family responsibilities (I’m the proud parent of two beautiful daughters and the proud spouse of one beautiful wife). Please be patient with the relative paucity of posts. Hopefully the newly redesigned page will be better than this one – that is the point of redesigning after all. I’m working on a Joomla-based site instead of WordPress (I have nothing against WordPress, I just wanted to try something new).

Descartes and Modern Psychology

Psychology is a field that traces its roots back thousands of years. In its earliest forms it was a subset of philosophy; Aristotle, Plato, and other Greek philosophers all posited psychological principles. Decartes is sometimes considered the founding father of modern philosophical psychology. He is possibly the most famous dualist; he believed that there was a split between mind and body. The mind influenced the brain through the pineal gland, a small structure in the middle of the brain. It is situated near the ventricles in the brain. Descartes believed that the pineal gland moved the “animal spirits” in the ventricles and sent them throughout the body, through the nerves, to control behavior and movement. DescartesThis was not true but back in the day it seemed a very logical explanation, especially in light of the new discovery about how the heart worked like a pump for blood. The pineal gland was Descartes ideal structure where mind and body interacted because it was in the middle of the brain and was a singular brain structure (most structures in the brain are in both hemispheres. So for example, there are two hippocampi, two caudates, two frontal lobes, etc…). Even with Descartes advances, psychology remained a philosophy until the 1800s when Wundt and other empiricists created experimental psychological laboratories. From there, the field of psychology grew exponentially into the major field it is today.

Many other people influenced psychology over the years, people such as William James, Charles Darwin, B. F. Skinner, Sigmund Freud, and Jean Piaget but Descartes is the earliest of “modern psychologists,” even though he was involved in so much more than psychology. Contrary to conventional wisdom, Descartes was someone who came before the horse and led the way (pun intended; “Don’t put the cart {Descartes} before the horse.”).

Britney Spears and Dr. Phil

I don’t normally follow celebrity news but a recent event occurred that warrants comment. Dr. Phil recently and unexpectedly showed up at Britney’s hospital room to “lend support”. He ended up talking with her for an hour (there are differing reports about this incident – some say they talked for an hour, others that Britney kicked him out right away). Dr. Phil came under fire for his actions. I think what he did was completely unacceptable. Even if he truly was concerned for her, Dr. Phil’s actions were inappropriate.

He stated that her family asked that he visit Britney. That request shows that her family really doesn’t care about her. If they cared, they would have recommended a real psychologist. Sure, Dr. Phil has a PhD in psychology. However, he’s a pop clinical psychologist who dishes out insults faster than inspiration.He doesn’t provide empirically supported treatment, he doesn’t provide therapy at all. He’s a TV personality; Dr. Phil is to clinical psychology as N’Sync is to music. Additionally, his “tough love” method of therapy is not effective for the vast majority of patients.

Britney did not request that Dr. Phil visit her. Her medical doctors certainly didn’t either. Dr. Phil visiting is like giving the bones of a fish to a starving person. I don’t have anything against Dr. Phil personally, I just don’t think he should be making unsolicited (Britney is an adult after all and can make – however poorly – her own decisions) visits. Besides, he was talking to the press afterward, talking about Britney and her problems. So much for confidentiality. His actions are downright unethical. He was even planning a whole show around her and her problems (which he has since canceled or postponed, thankfully).

Again, Dr. Phil is not a psychologist, he is a TV star. He had no business visiting Britney, who needs real help, not his pseudopsychology.

Biological Determinism

Free WillAs someone with a strong neurobiological foundation, I believe that the brain is the center of all behavior. What is the evidence for that belief? Remove someone’s brain and see if they have any behavior (note: I’m not endorsing this behavior, I’m merely postulating a hypothetical situation). Without the brain, there is no behavior. So, the brain is necessary for behavior but is it sufficient?

In psychology we often talk about necessary and sufficient conditions for behavior. That is, you may need a certain factor in order for a behavior to happen but without other factors, the behavior will not occur. For example, you need water to live – it is necessary – but you also need food, so thus not sufficient. So, the brain is necessary for behavior but can all behavior be explained solely by the brain? Another way of phrasing this question is, “Does biology determine all behavior?” The term for this belief is biological determinism.

To answer the question we first have to investigate and uncover other potential influences on (causes of) behavior. If behavior is biologically determined, do people have free will? That is, do people really have the ability to consciously make and choose different behavior? Or are all behaviors simply determined at the neuronal (or genetic) level and free will is only an illusion? This post is an expansion on one of my previous posts concerning alternative assumptions to naturalism in neuroscience.

If you really believe that the brain (and by reductionism, genes) are solely responsible for behavior, then you cannot believe that people have free will. You also cannot believe that the environment is directly responsible for behavior – it can influence it – but at the core, your genes and your neurons create behaviors. Alternatively, you can believe that humans have free will, that we can make choices because of or in spite of our biology. Agency can influence biology and biology can influence agency – they are not mutually exclusive categories. While the brain is a necessary condition for behavior, it is not sufficient; agency is a factor in human behavior.