Elsevier

Brain Research

Volume 1236, 21 October 2008, Pages 225-233
Brain Research

Research Report
Prefrontal cortex and striatal activation by feedback in Parkinson's disease

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2008.07.110Get rights and content

Abstract

Positive feedbacks reinforce goal-directed behavior and evoke pleasure. In Parkinson's disease (PD) the striatal dysfunction impairs motor performance, but also may lead to decreased positive feedback (reward) processing. This study investigates two types of positive feedback processing (monetary feedback and positive informative feedback), both compared to meaningless feedback, in PD patients and elderly healthy controls, using fMRI. In addition, positive informative feedback will be compared to monetary feedback to determine whether positive informative feedback is just as salient as monetary feedback. Healthy controls showed increased activation in the left putamen during the monetary feedback condition compared to both the positive informative and meaningless feedback condition, without an effect in the medial Prefrontal Cortex (mPFC). In contrast, PD patients showed increased activation in the left putamen during the meaningless feedback condition compared to both positive feedback conditions. In addition, PD patients showed increased activation of the mPFC during both positive feedback conditions. This suggests that when confronted with positive feedback, the mPFC compensates for the striatal deficit. In conclusion, striatal activation was seen in healthy controls specifically during the monetary feedback condition. PD patients did not differentiate between both types of positive feedback. If PD patients are provided with positive feedback, the mPFC compensates for the striatal dysfunction. If however, PD patients are provided with meaningless feedback, the mPFC is less stimulated and the striatum becomes prominent. This study thus demonstrates striatal involvement in positive feedback processing and altered positive feedback processing in PD.

Introduction

In everyday life positive feedbacks in response to human action are an obvious phenomenon. These feedbacks may differ both in style and intensity, e.g. receiving money will be evaluated differently than a positive verbal remark. Positive feedbacks (also designated as “rewards”) reinforce goal-directed behavior and evoke positive feelings (Schultz, 1997). Various brain areas may be associated with positive feedback processing (reward processing) in humans, in dependence of the behavioral task used during neuroimaging. However, certain brain areas are consistently associated with reward processing in healthy humans: striatum (nucleus accumbens, nucleus caudatus, putamen), orbitofrontal cortex, anterior cingulate gyrus and other parts of the prefrontal cortex (McClure et al., 2004).

Parkinson's disease (PD) is characterized by a dysfunctional striatum, due to a progressive degeneration of dopaminergic neurons in the substantia nigra. Motor symptoms are the clinical hallmark, however depression, cognitive dysfunction and other signs and symptoms are often present (Lauterbach, 2004). The striatum is extensively connected with the prefrontal cortex through the so-called fronto-striatal circuits. Due to the dysfunction of the striatum these circuits are functionally impaired as well in PD (Alexander et al., 1986).

Neuroimaging studies investigated reward processing in PD using various tasks and methods. Using a pattern recognition task during H215O Positron Emission Tomography (PET), Kunig et al. (2000) showed a lack of striatal activation in response to reward in PD patients. Furthermore, they reported that the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and the anterior cingulate gyrus, did show activation in PD patients in response to reward, suggesting a compensatory strategy reflected by a shift from striatal to prefrontal regions for reward processing. Schott et al. (2007) also reported such increased cortical activation. They used a reward-prediction paradigm during functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) and showed increased activation during reward feedback in the medial prefrontal cortex and anterior cingulate gyrus in PD patients. Goerendt et al. (2004) examined the processing of rewards of different magnitudes in PD patients and healthy controls using H215O PET. They showed that task completion time improved with increasing reward magnitude. In healthy controls this was associated with increased prefrontal and rhinal cortex activity. In contrast, PD patients showed a cerebellar vermis overactivation, also suggesting a compensatory strategy which in that study was reflected by a shift from prefrontal regions to the cerebellum. These studies thus provide arguments that reward processing is altered in PD.

Rewards or feedback also play an important role in learning. It has been reported that PD patients specifically show impairments when learning is based upon feedback compared to learning without receiving feedback (Shohamy et al., 2004). Furthermore, PD patients “on” levodopa learn better when learning is based upon receiving positive feedback, while PD patients “off” levodopa learn better when learning is based upon receiving negative feedback (Frank et al., 2004). Learning is thus influenced by the use of levodopa.

The present study uses fMRI to investigate the consequences of dysfunctional fronto-striatal circuits for the processing of positive feedback, using PD as a model disease. In this context not many studies have been performed. The current study aims to extend previous findings by investigating two types of positive feedback (“monetary feedback” and “positive informative feedback”) rather than rewards of different magnitudes. Both types are compared to a “meaningless feedback” condition. All three types are embedded in a working memory task.

Since PD is characterized by a dysfunction of the fronto-striatal circuits, we specifically focused on the brain activation patterns in the basal ganglia and frontal regions.

In addition, we have addressed the question whether positive informative feedback is just as salient as monetary feedback by comparing the activation in the striatum and prefrontal cortex during the positive informative feedback condition to the activation within these areas during the monetary feedback and meaningless feedback conditions. This was investigated in PD patients “on” levodopa compared to elderly healthy controls. We hypothesized that PD patients show an altered feedback processing. Specifically, it was expected that PD patients show a decreased striatal activation during both types of positive feedback conditions compared to the meaningless feedback condition, while showing increased prefrontal activation during both types of positive feedback conditions compared to the meaningless feedback condition.

Section snippets

Voxel-based analysis

In this section differences are shown that resulted from both within and between group analyses, contrasting the monetary feedback condition to the meaningless feedback condition, which was used as input for the ROI analysis. This enabled the identification of the prefrontal and striatal foci of maximal intensity.

Within the elderly healthy controls, the monetary feedback condition versus meaningless feedback condition contrast, yielded significant bilateral high parietal, a large pons/midbrain

Discussion

The aim of this study was to investigate the consequences of dysfunctional fronto-striatal circuits for the processing of two different types of positive feedback conditions (monetary feedback and positive informative feedback) both compared to a meaningless feedback condition. This was investigated in PD patients “on” levodopa compared to elderly healthy controls. In addition, positive informative feedback was compared to monetary feedback to determine whether positive informative feedback was

Subjects

Twenty-three subjects were included in this study: eleven PD patients (nine males (82%) and two females (18%)) and twelve healthy controls (ten males (83%) and two females (17%)). PD patients were on average 58.7 (SD = 7.6) years old and showed a mean score of 5.9 (SD = 0.8) on a Dutch education scale ranging from 1 (Elementary school not finished) to 7 (University degree). Demographic and illness characteristics of all patients are described in Table 3. Healthy controls were on average 58.8 (SD = 

Acknowledgments

Partial financial support for this study was obtained from the Prinses Beatrix Foundation (PBF). Dr. Remco Renken holds a Hazewinkel-Behringer fellowship. We are also especially grateful to Dr. W. Schultz for allowing us to use his task paradigm.

References (30)

  • AlexanderG.E. et al.

    Parallel organization of functionally segregated circuits linking basal ganglia and cortex

    Annu. Rev. Neurosci.

    (1986)
  • BrettM. et al.

    Region of interest analysis using an SPM toolbox

    Neuroimage

    (2002)
  • de la Fuente-FernandezR. et al.

    Expectation and dopamine release: mechanism of the placebo effect in Parkinson's disease

    Science

    (2001)
  • EsselinkR.A. et al.

    Unilateral pallidotomy versus bilateral subthalamic nucleus stimulation in PD: a randomized trial

    Neurology

    (2004)
  • FahnS. et al.

    Unified Parkinsons disease rating scale

  • Cited by (12)

    • Subjective and objective assessment of executive functions in Parkinson's disease

      2011, Journal of the Neurological Sciences
      Citation Excerpt :

      This domain involves emotional and reward processing necessary for appropriate adaptive responding in the absence of cognitive analysis, habit or environmental cues [14]. Problems with emotional and reward processing have also been described in PD [15–18]. Since PD patients reported the same number of problems as their relatives it can be assumed that they had a good insight into their daily life functioning.

    • Impulse control disorders in Parkinson’s disease

      2018, Journal of Neural Transmission
    View all citing articles on Scopus
    1

    These authors contributed equally to this manuscript.

    View full text