Hemifacial spasm or somatoform disorder - postexcitatory inhibition after transcranial magnetic cortical stimulation asa diagnostic tool

2000 ◽  
Vol 101 (5) ◽  
pp. 305-310 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Kotterba ◽  
M. Tegenthoff ◽  
J-P. Malin
Keyword(s):  
Hemifacial Spasm ◽  
Diagnostic Tool ◽  
Somatoform Disorder ◽  
Cortical Stimulation ◽  
Transcranial Magnetic Cortical Stimulation

Stereotactic pallidotomy lengthens the transcranial magnetic cortical stimulation silent period in Parkinson's disease

Neurology ◽  
1997 ◽  
Vol 49 (5) ◽  
pp. 1278-1283 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. S. Young ◽  
W. J. Triggs ◽  
D. Bowers ◽  
M. Greer ◽  
W. A. Friedman
Keyword(s):  
Parkinson’S Disease ◽  
Parkinson's Disease ◽  
Globus Pallidus ◽  
Motor Evoked Potential ◽  
Silent Period ◽  
Cortical Stimulation ◽  
Abductor Pollicis Brevis ◽  
Inhibitory Circuits ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Transcranial Magnetic Cortical Stimulation

We compared the duration of the EMG cortical stimulation silent period(CSSP) elicited in abductor pollicis brevis using transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) before and after stereotactic unilateral globus pallidus internus pallidotomy (PAL) in 12 patients with Parkinson's disease. We used TMS stimulus intensities of 200, 150, 120, and 100% of motor evoked potential(MEP) threshold before and after (86 ± 25 days) PAL. PAL increased CSSP duration at stimulus intensities of 200% of MEP threshold in the hand contralateral to the stereotactic lesion. In a subset of five patients able to remain at rest during pre-PAL testing sessions, PAL decreased the resting MEP/M-wave area ratio in the hand contralateral to the lesion at a stimulus intensity of 120% of MEP threshold. PAL did not significantly modify the effects of TMS in the hand ipsilateral to the globus pallidus lesion. The results suggest that PAL improves the function of cortical motor inhibitory circuits in Parkinson's disease.

The muscle silent period following transcranial magnetic cortical stimulation

1993 ◽  
Vol 114 (2) ◽  
pp. 216-222 ◽  
Author(s):  
S.A. Wilson ◽  
R.J. Lockwood ◽  
G.W. Thickbroom ◽  
F.L. Mastaglia
Keyword(s):  
Silent Period ◽  
Cortical Stimulation ◽  
Transcranial Magnetic Cortical Stimulation

Transcranial Magnetic Cortical Stimulation Relieves Central Pain

2002 ◽  
Vol 78 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 192-196 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Canavero ◽  
V. Bonicalzi ◽  
M. Dotta ◽  
S. Vighetti ◽  
G. Asteggiano ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cortical Stimulation ◽  
Central Pain ◽  
Transcranial Magnetic Cortical Stimulation

The Elicited Language Analysis Procedure

1982 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 37-41
Author(s):  
Larry J. Mattes
Keyword(s):  
Diagnostic Tool ◽  
Descriptive Analysis ◽  
Quality Measures ◽  
Analysis Procedure ◽  
Elicited Imitation ◽  
Response Quality ◽  
Semantic Relationships ◽  
Language Analysis

Elicited imitation tasks are frequently used as a diagnostic tool in evaluating children with communication handicaps. This article presents a scoring procedure that can be used to obtain an in-depth descriptive analysis of responses produced on elicited imitation tasks. The Elicited Language Analysis Procedure makes it possible to systematically evaluate responses in terms of both their syntactic and semantic relationships to the stimulus sentences presented by the examiner. Response quality measures are also included in the analysis procedure.

Challenges in the Diagnostic Conceptualization of CRPS-1 (Formerly Conceptualized as RSD)

2006 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-3, 9-12
Author(s):  
Robert J. Barth ◽  
Tom W. Bohr
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Complex Regional Pain Syndrome ◽  
Somatoform Disorders ◽  
International Association ◽  
Pain Syndrome ◽  
Somatoform Disorder ◽  
Syndrome Type ◽  
Previous Issue

Abstract From the previous issue, this article continues a discussion of the potentially confusing aspects of the diagnostic formulation for complex regional pain syndrome type 1 (CRPS-1) proposed by the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP), the relevance of these issues for a proposed future protocol, and recommendations for clinical practice. IASP is working to resolve the contradictions in its approach to CRPS-1 diagnosis, but it continues to include the following criterion: “[c]ontinuing pain, which is disproportionate to any inciting event.” This language only perpetuates existing issues with current definitions, specifically the overlap between the IASP criteria for CRPS-1 and somatoform disorders, overlap with the guidelines for malingering, and self-contradiction with respect to the suggestion of injury-relatedness. The authors propose to overcome the last of these by revising the criterion: “[c]omplaints of pain in the absence of any identifiable injury that could credibly account for the complaints.” Similarly, the overlap with somatoform disorders could be reworded: “The possibility of a somatoform disorder has been thoroughly assessed, with the results of that assessment failing to produce any consistencies with a somatoform scenario.” The overlap with malingering could be addressed in this manner: “The possibility of malingering has been thoroughly assessed, with the results of that assessment failing to produce any consistencies with a malingering scenario.” The article concludes with six recommendations, and a sidebar discusses rating impairment for CRPS-1 (with explicit instructions not to use the pain chapter for this purpose).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document