% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@ARTICLE{Trempler:874939,
author = {Trempler, Ima and Bürkner, Paul-Christian and El-Sourani,
Nadiya and Binder, Ellen and Reker, Paul and Fink, Gereon R.
and Schubotz, Ricarda I.},
title = {{I}mpaired context-sensitive adjustment of behaviour in
{P}arkinson’s disease patients tested on and off
medication: {A}n f{MRI} study},
journal = {NeuroImage},
volume = {212},
issn = {1053-8119},
address = {Orlando, Fla.},
publisher = {Academic Press},
reportid = {FZJ-2020-01711},
pages = {116674 -},
year = {2020},
abstract = {The brain’s sensitivity to and accentuation of
unpredicted over predicted sensory signals plays a
fundamental role in learning. According to recent
theoretical models of the predictive coding framework,
dopamine is responsible for balancing the interplay between
bottom-up input and top-down predictions by controlling the
precision of surprise signals that guide learning.Using
functional MRI, we investigated whether patients with
Parkinson’s disease (PD) show impaired learning from
prediction errors requiring either adaptation or
stabilisation of current predictions. Moreover, we were
interested in whether deficits in learning over a specific
time scale would be accompanied by altered surprise
responses in dopamine-related brain structures. To this end,
twenty-one PD patients tested on and off dopaminergic
medication and twenty-one healthy controls performed a digit
prediction paradigm. During the task, violations of
sequence-based predictions either signalled the need to
update or to stabilise the current prediction and, thus, to
react to them or ignore them, respectively. To investigate
contextual adaptation to prediction errors, the probability
(or its inverse, surprise) of the violations fluctuated
across the experiment.When the probability of prediction
errors over a specific time scale increased, healthy
controls but not PD patients off medication became more
flexible, i.e., error rates at violations requiring a motor
response decreased in controls but increased in patients. On
the neural level, this learning deficit in patients was
accompanied by reduced signalling in the substantia nigra
and the caudate nucleus. In contrast, differences between
the groups regarding the probabilistic modulation of
behaviour and neural responses were much less pronounced at
prediction errors requiring only stabilisation but no
adaptation. Interestingly, dopaminergic medication could
neither improve learning from prediction errors nor restore
the physiological, neurotypical pattern.Our findings point
to a pivotal role of dysfunctions of the substantia nigra
and caudate nucleus in deficits in learning from
flexibility-demanding prediction errors in PD. Moreover, the
data witness poor effects of dopaminergic medication on
learning in PD.},
cin = {INM-3},
ddc = {610},
cid = {I:(DE-Juel1)INM-3-20090406},
pnm = {572 - (Dys-)function and Plasticity (POF3-572)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-572},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
pubmed = {pmid:32097724},
UT = {WOS:000525320500014},
doi = {10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.116674},
url = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/874939},
}