Abstract

This study investigated inhibitory function in patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) by recording event-related brain potentials (ERPs) during a Go/NoGo task. Fourteen healthy volunteers and 13 patients with PD without dementia performed a cued continuous performance test that included Go and NoGo trials. The peak latency, amplitude, and topographic distributions of the ERPs to Go and NoGo stimuli were analyzed. Cognitive function was evaluated using the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST), Kana Pick-out Test, and Verbal Fluency Test (VFT). Performances in the WCST and VFT were significantly impaired in the PD group as compared with the control group. The PD group had significantly higher rates of omission and commission errors during the ERP task. The ERP study found no differences in the latency and amplitude of the Go-P3 between the two groups. By contrast, the NoGo-P3 latency was significantly longer in the PD group than in the control group. The amplitudes of the NoGo-P3 and NoGo-N2 were also significantly smaller in the PD group than in the control group. The NoGo-P3 latency was significantly correlated with the Kana Pick-out Test and VFT scores. The NoGo-P3 amplitude was significantly correlated with the WCST and VFT scores, as well as with the number of commission errors. There were no significant correlations between the cognitive function tests and either the Go-P3 or NoGo-N2 measures. The behavioral and ERP data suggest that there is selective impairment of inhibitory function in PD and that this deficit may be related to impaired inhibitory executive function in the frontal lobe.

Keywords: NoGo; Frontal lobe; Wisconsin Card Sorting Test; Kana Pick-out Test; Verbal Fluency Test

Article Outline

1. Introduction

2. Methods

2.1. Subjects

2.2. Stimulus and experimental paradigm

2.3. EEG recordings

2.4. Data analysis

2.5. Neuropsychological assessment

2.6. Statistical analysis

3. Results

3.1. Performance

3.2. ERP components

3.3. Scalp topography

3.4. Cognitive functions

3.5. Correlation between ERP components and cognitive functions

4. Discussion

Acknowledgements

References