1. Neuroscience
Download icon

Effects of spinal cord stimulation on postural control in Parkinson's disease patients with freezing of gait

  1. Andrea Cristina de Lima-Pardini  Is a corresponding author
  2. Daniel Boari Coelho  Is a corresponding author
  3. Carolina Pinto Souza
  4. Carolina Oliveira Souza
  5. Maria Gabriela dos Santos Ghilardi
  6. Tiago Garcia
  7. Mariana Voos
  8. Matija Milosevic
  9. Clement Hamani
  10. Luis Augusto Teixeira
  11. Erich Talamoni Fonoff  Is a corresponding author
  1. Federal University of ABC, Brazil
  2. University of São Paulo, Brazil
  3. University of São Paulo Medical School, Brazil
  4. University of Tokyo, Japan
  5. University of Toronto, Canada
  6. Toronto Western Hospital, University of Toronto, Canada
Short Report
  • Cited 2
  • Views 1,336
  • Annotations
Cite this article as: eLife 2018;7:e37727 doi: 10.7554/eLife.37727

Abstract

Freezing of gait (FoG) in Parkinson’s disease (PD) is an incapacitating transient phenomenon, followed by continuous postural disorders. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a promising intervention for FoG in patients with PD, however, its effects on distinct domains of postural control is not well known. The aim of this study is to assess the effects of SCS on FoG and distinct domains of postural control. Four patients with FoG were implanted with SCS systems in the upper thoracic spine. Anticipatory postural adjustment (APA), reactive postural responses, gait and FoG were biomechanically assessed. In general, the results showed that SCS improved FoG and APA. However, SCS failed to improve reactive postural responses. SCS seems to influence cortical motor circuits, involving the supplementary motor area. On the other hand, reactive posture control to external perturbation that mainly relies on neuronal circuitries involving the brainstem and spinal cord, is less influenced by SCS.

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.37727.001

Introduction

Postural instability and gait disorders (PIGD) are debilitating phenomena that frequently impair locomotion and can significantly affect the quality of life in Parkinson’s disease (PD) patients (Perez-Lloret et al., 2014). PIGD is the most common cause of falls, which are associated with increase in morbimortality in PD (Bloem et al., 2004; Delval et al., 2014). Freezing of gait (FoG) is described as brief and episodic absence or marked reduction of the anterior progression of the feet, despite the intention to walk (Giladi and Nieuwboer, 2008). While taking a step forward in unsupported biped position, the body weight is shifted toward the supporting leg. Normal gait requires an exact coordination of postural adjustment in advance of each step forward, namely anticipatory postural adjustment (APA) (de Lima-Pardini et al., 2017). During imminent FoG episodes, the intention to walk is uncoupled from the triggering of APA, with consequent failure of the forward movement. This often results in knee trembling and failure to initiate gait. In PD, FoG episodes are associated with deficient APA (Mancini et al., 2016; Schlenstedt et al., 2018). Physiological evidence, functional imaging and clinical-pathological studies suggest that FoG is mainly associated with disorders of frontal cortical regions (e.g. supplementary motor area - SMA) that comprise a known brain circuitry dedicated to APA control (de Lima-Pardini et al., 2017; Jacobs et al., 2009a; Bolzoni et al., 2015).

The occurrence of FoG is highly influenced by attention, environmental triggers and dopaminergic drugs, suggesting the existence of complex mechanisms involving brainstem locomotor networks, the basal ganglia and cortical regions (Jacobs et al., 2009a; Deecke, 1987; Coelho and Teixeira, 2017). On the other hand, automatic balance control seems to be mediated mainly by brainstem circuits, being less sensitive to attentional and environmental disturbances (Horak and Diener, 1994).

Since the first experimental report from Fuentes et al. (Fuentes et al., 2009) showing that SCS could enhance locomotion in PD models in mice, and more recently in primates by possibly shifting the brain pathological oscillatory activity (Santana et al., 2014), SCS began to figure as a possible treatment for FoG in PD. Increasing evidence suggests that spinal cord stimulation (SCS) improves treatment-resistant postural and gait disorders in patients with PD (de Andrade et al., 2016; Nishioka and Nakajima, 2015; Yadav and Nicolelis, 2017). In primates, SCS increases neuronal firing of the primary motor cortex, and decreases pathological cortico-striatal synchronous low-frequency waves showing that SCS does influence the oscillatory activity in brain motor circuits (Fuentes et al., 2009; Bentley et al., 2016). In fact, SCS may disrupt the aberrant inhibition of the globus pallidus internus onto thalamus and SMA (Brudzynski et al., 1993; Takakusaki, 2017). As part of the circuit that controls APA, the SMA has cortifugal projections to pedunculopontine nuclei (PPN), a region particularly involved in gait initiation (Takakusaki, 2017; Aravamuthan et al., 2009). Since the activity of SMA, globus pallidus and PPN are impaired in patients with FoG (Snijders et al., 2016), SCS would be able to modulate this circuit and improve APA and gait initiation. Recently, our group reported positive effects of high-frequency SCS (300 Hz) on gait, improving the performance in various gait tests, which were reproduced during double-blinded assessments. Also, continuous SCS chronically reduced FoG episodes, improved unified Parkinson's disease rating scale (UPDRS)-III motor scale scores and of self-reported quality of life (Pinto de Souza et al., 2017). These results are in line with previous clinical observations and findings recorded in Parkinsonian animal models (Fuentes et al., 2009; Santana et al., 2014). Overall, these preliminary results (Pinto de Souza et al., 2017; Landi et al., 2013; Agari and Date, 2012) suggest that SCS may be a promising approach to attenuate gait disabilities generated by FoG. However, the mechanisms by which SCS affects FoG in PD patients remain unknown. So far, it has been shown that SCS can improve FoG in advanced stages of PD patients; however, the effects of SCS over APA and reactive balance control measurements in patients with PD with PIGD are still unknown. We hypothesize that SCS improves PIGD in patients with PD by improving balance. To test this hypothesis, we studied APA and reactive control of posture and balance using instrumental analysis.

Results

During 300 Hz-SCS, all participants showed significant decrease of APA duration compared to OFF (Figure 1C) (p=0.042). For the 60 Hz-SCS, while participants 1 and 2 showed shortened APA duration, participants 3 and 4 showed increased APA duration as compared to the OFF condition, failing to show significance (p=0.866). Descriptive values of amplitude (peak) of APA showed increased values in all participants, except for the participant 4 at 60 Hz (Figure 1A), without reaching significance compared to OFF condition (p=0.177). The improvement in FoG observed in a preliminary report (Pinto de Souza et al., 2017) was reproduced in this trial with patients 2 and 3 showing significant reduction of FoG duration during 300 Hz SCS only (p=0.042). Patients 1 and 4 did not experience any FoG episodes during the biomechanical assessment in the Gait Laboratory in any condition (Figure 1B).

Individual and mean values ​​for % change of the outcome variables: time of gait, time of FoG, time of APA, amplitude (peak) of APA and the variables that describe reactive postural control - CoPap amplitude and CoMap amplitude. 

(A) Individual mean curves of the body mediolateral displacement (APA) - thin lines; and the standard deviation (thick and transparent bands) for each stimulation parameter (OFF – gray, 60 Hz – red, 300 Hz – blue). (B) Graphs showing the individual mean values of % of change for each outcome variable in 60 and 300 Hz relative to the off condition. (C) Mean values and standard deviations of % change for each outcome variable (time of gait, time of FoG, time and amplitude of APA, CoP and CoM amplitude. Asterisks highlight significant effects for 60 and 300 Hz as compared to the off condition.

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.37727.002
Representation of FOG based on spectral analysis and the step initiation task.

(A) Characterization of FoG based on spectral analysis. Schematic representation of a man representing the lumbar accelerometer as a small black box. The curve represents the vertical acceleration acquired during step initiation. The dotted square shows a 7.5 s window for the frequency analysis domain (normal gait in blue and freezing in red). (B) Spectral analysis of acceleration showing one band representing the locomotor period (0–3 Hz) and the FoG band (3–8 Hz). (C) FoG index showing the clinical threshold (>2 = FoG); FoG index is calculated by dividing the FoG band by the locomotor band (blue circle – power peak of normal gait; red circle – power peak of a period with FoG). (D) Representation of the step initiation task, showing the marker on the malleolus to detect the moment that the foot clears the floor. The sequence showed in D and E (1-4) shows: (1) beginning of the task, when the participant is in quiet standing (body weight balanced under the feet), preceding the step. (2) The red arrow shows body weight shifting toward the supporting leg (APA). (3) Once the body weight is shifted contralaterally, the moving leg can be released to take a step and finish the movement (4). The graphs showed in D and E represent the moment that each phase of the sequence 1-4) occurs: 1-quiet standing; 2- peak of APA; 3- step; 4-end of the movement. The red line represents the mediolateral force under the supporting leg, the dotted line is the displacement of the moving foot. The red line in D represents a defective mediolateral displacement of the body weight (APA), showing a relative smaller amplitude and longer APA compared to a normal APA displayed in E.

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.37727.003

Considering the reactive postural control, the results of SCS over the amplitude of COMap and COPap did not show significant changes for 60 (p=0.860) and 300 Hz (p=0.220) when compared to OFF state. Note that subject two had higher COMap (worse performance) during both 60 Hz and 300 Hz SCS, and higher COP (worse performance) during 60 Hz SCS compared to OFF state.

Discussion

While normal gait requires adequate coordination between the APA and limb movements (de Lima-Pardini et al., 2017), FoG episodes are thought to involve defective APA resulting in difficulty or cessation of gait initiation (Schlenstedt et al., 2018; Jacobs et al., 2009b). In the present study, data showed that SCS at 300 Hz was effective in reducing the duration of APA and reducing the time of FoG. Conversely, we observed that SCS at 60 Hz failed to improve gait and APA. Corroborating clinical results, there was no significant improvement in FoG in the present study, neither in our preliminary report when 60 Hz-SCS was applied (Pinto de Souza et al., 2017). Unexpectedly, two patients did not experience any FoG episodes during laboratory examination, even when SCS was OFF for a period longer than their carry-over effect lasted. Being the FoG an episodic phenomenon, even severe patients may not exhibit FoG in the laboratory (Nutt et al., 2011; Giladi et al., 2000). Conversely, the time of FoG was reduced in the other 2 subjects during 300 Hz SCS. In the previous report, we showed that all subjects did experience frequent FoG episodes and were responsive to 300 Hz SCS in the outpatient clinic (Pinto de Souza et al., 2017). Nonetheless, our findings suggest that SCS at 300 Hz is more effective than SCS at 60 Hz (both with pulse width at 90 μs and amplitudes at 105% of sensory threshold) in improving FoG and correcting APAs. However, recent studies have shown that SCS at higher density stimulation parameters (200–500 μs/30–130 Hz) also improved gait and FoG in PD patients (Samotus et al., 2018) or at 70–100 Hz in primary freezing of gait when applied at T8-T10 spinal segments (Rohani et al., 2017). Yet, none of the reports presented data on SCS at higher frequencies such as 300 Hz. Earlier reports also show that SCS improved gait but these studies did not employ a systematic assessment of gait, posture and FoG, comparing different stimulation frequencies as we showed here (de Andrade et al., 2016).

Circuits involving the supplementary motor area (SMA) are thought to modulate APA (Takakusaki, 2017), specifically in its timing (Jacobs et al., 2009a). Our results showed that timing, but not amplitude of APA was improved by SCS at 300 Hz, which could indicate that motor circuits involving SMA were also influenced. Although data showing that SCS directly modulates SMA still lacks, extensive data show that SCS modulates cortical function of primary sensory and motor areas, in addition to the prefrontal, cingulate and insula cortices, and thalamus in humans and animals (Fuentes et al., 2009; Santana et al., 2014; Bentley et al., 2016; Stancák et al., 2008). Inputs from ascending leminiscal and extralemniscal pathways to the brainstem and thalamus that may modulate SMA are also highly connected to the pedunculopontine nucleus (PPN), a locomotor region in the brainstem involved in the control of movement initiation and body equilibrium (Takakusaki, 2017). It is thought that ascending stimulation of the thalamic-cortical-striatum loop delivered by SCS may disrupt the aberrant inhibition of the globus pallidus internus onto thalamus and PPN, facilitating the reticulospinal tract and, consequently, activating central pattern generators (CPG) in the spinal cord (Brudzynski et al., 1993; Takakusaki, 2017). According to previous studies in animals, facilitation of the thalamic-cortical-striatum loop occurs due to the inhibition of abnormal synchronous beta frequency neuronal oscillations (Fuentes et al., 2009; Santana et al., 2014; Yadav and Nicolelis, 2017).

We also observed that the reactive posture control was not affected by SCS in both conditions. In fact, one of the participants showed poorer reactive postural control in both stimulation frequencies, but still exhibiting positive response in APA and FoG. While a case study also found improvements in gait with no changes in reactive postural control after SCS (Landi et al., 2013), another report showed an effect of SCS in reactive postural responses (Agari and Date, 2012). These studies, however, assessed responses to perturbation by the pull test, which is a qualitative measurement influenced by a subjective impression of the evaluator. Here, we show a more robust and reliable kinetic analysis of postural control. It is worth noting that we employed a systematic method to quantify FoG, considered more reliable than the Freezing of Gait Questionnaire (Giladi et al., 2000) alone. Based on the present data and in our previous results, SCS apparently improves FoG and APA and does not influence reactive posture control. It is possible that SCS might differently affect these two mechanisms of postural control – reactive and anticipatory. APA mechanisms are dependent of thalamo-cortical-striatum loops highly influenced by attentional and environmental changes (Takakusaki, 2017; Jacobs and Horak, 2007). On the other hand, unlike APAs, reactive posture control to external and unpredictable triggers relies on neuronal circuitries involving the brainstem and spinal cord with less cortical influence from the cortex (Jacobs and Horak, 2007; Honeycutt et al., 2009). It is possible that circuits that depend on cortical influence are more sensitive to SCS, given the increasing in cortical input to the striatum that reaches structures involved in planning of movement, required during APAs but not during unpredictable external perturbations (Krishnamurthi et al., 2012; Bleuse et al., 2011; Liu et al., 2006). Similarly to what have been found for DBS, our results suggest that SCS did not improve reactive postural control (St George et al., 2012). Although there is evidence that DBS initially improves FoG and gait (Schlenstedt et al., 2017), biomechanical and laboratory findings on APA are still conflicting. A few studies show that DBS impairs APA during step initiation (Muniz et al., 2010) even when administered in the ON levodopa state (Rocchi et al., 2012). These results suggest that continuous stimulation of circuits in the subthalamic region may lead to plastic changes that impaired step initiation. While DBS corrects cardinal symptoms of PD and dyskinesias, it does not seem to substantially affect APA and FoG. In contrast, SCS can improve FoG and APA in both DBS ON and OFF medication conditions. These collective results suggest that SCS and DBS could be mechanistically and clinically complementary.

In conclusion, our findings suggest that the effects of SCS observed clinically in FOG are followed by an improvement in APA during step initiation, but not by changes in reactive postural control. We note, however, that our findings were recorded in a small number of participants. In the future, following clinical trials with larger sample, the use of similar methods of instrumented posture and gait assessment, may possibly contribute to better understanding the effects of SCS in different gait and postural situations.

Materials and methods

The study was approved by the department review board and in the ethics committee at Hospital das Clinicas of University of São Paulo and registered in the national clinical research database (CAPPESQ-HCFMUSP #12690213.0.0000.0068), which requires all participants to be previously instructed about the procedures and to give written informed consent prior to study inclusion. Patients included in the present study participated in the clinical trial also registered in the clinicaltrials.gov (#NCT02388204). All experiments were performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki (World Medical Association, 2002). Four patients with PIGD previously treated with bilateral STN DBS were implanted with SCS systems in the upper thoracic spine (T2-T4) (Pinto de Souza et al., 2017). Patients were tested for the effects of SCS on APA, and postural reactive responses related to postural and balance control. Assessments were performed in the following conditions: (Perez-Lloret et al., 2014) OFF SCS; (Bloem et al., 2004) ON SCS at 60 Hz; and (Delval et al., 2014) ON SCS at 300 Hz with or without medication (ON/OFF meds) for at least 12 hr. These conditions were randomized and tested at least one week apart. 60 Hz SCS and 300 Hz were applied as active condition since they generated undistinguished paresthesias, but in average 60 Hz exerted no significant effects in gait, while 300 Hz elicited substantial improvement (Pinto de Souza et al., 2017).

Data collection

FoG was assessed using a wireless accelerometer (Delsys, Trigno Delsys Inc., USA; filter: Butterworth, low-pass at 10 Hz) placed on the lumbar region during a 10 m walk task. Three 10 m walking trials were performed. To quantify APA, the patients were next assessed during step initiation with the less affected leg, having both feet positioned on a force platform (AMTI, OR6-6, Advanced Mechanical Technology Inc., USA; with an internal analog low-pass filter with a cutoff frequency set at 100 Hz). A reflective marker on the less affected leg (defined from the UPDRS part III) was used to identify the onset of the step through a motion analysis system (Vicon Nexus V.1.8, UK, with four cameras T10 - RRID:SCR_015001). The APA forces of the more affected side (contralateral limb to the stepping leg) were considered for the analysis. The single step was completed and the moving leg returned to the initial position. To maintain the same feet position over subsequent trials, the original positioning was outlined with tape on the force platform. Participants performed a single block of 10 trials of step initiation, with intertrial intervals of approximately 30 s. They used no physical support or sensory cueing to perform the step. At all times an experimenter remained close by to ensure safety of patients.

We also evaluated reactive postural responses to unanticipated mechanical perturbations. Reactive postural control was assessed using a custom-built movable force platform with an integrated force plate as the base of support (Coelho and Teixeira, 2017). Platform displacement was controlled through software developed in LabVIEW (LabVIEW, National Instruments Corp., USA - RRID:SCR_014325). Participants were tested in the upright posture with the feet positioned hip-width apart and slightly oriented sidewards (self-selected as preferred), keeping the arms folded on the chest. The task consisted of recovering stable body equilibrium following unanticipated backward displacement of the supporting platform, while maintaining the feet in place. The following parameters for platform perturbations were used: amplitude of 12 cm, peak velocity of 15 cm/s, and peak acceleration of 100 cm/s2. Perturbations were preceded by randomly varied preparatory intervals, ranging 1–3 s, to prevent anticipation.

Data analysis

The duration of FoG was calculated in the frequency domain based on the method proposed by Moore et al. (Moore et al., 2013; Moore et al., 2008), in which the frequency band of the acceleration during normal gait (0–3 Hz) and freezing (3–8 Hz) may be distinguished during walking through changes in frequency power (Figure 2A,B,C). Sampling windows of 7.5 s of the lumbar acceleration were defined for the spectrum analysis. In each sampling window, the peak power was calculated for the FoG band (3–8 Hz) and divided by the peak power of the normal gait (0.5–3 Hz). This metric is referred to as the index of FoG. Values above the clinical threshold of 2 were considerate as FoG events (Moore et al., 2013; Moore et al., 2008).

For analysis of the stepping task, onset of the APA was defined as the time between the abrupt increase of the mediolateral displacement, defined as two standard deviations above the mean of the baseline force, and the onset of the step, defined as two standard deviations above the mean of the baseline foot displacement in the anteroposterior direction (Figure 2). Based on these measurements, the time of APA was calculated as the time between the onset of APA and the onset of the step. Mediolateral force amplitude during the step task was normalized by the individual foot size (unit in N/cm).

For analysis of reactive postural control during perturbation trials, root mean square of anteroposterior displacement of the center of mass (COMap) and center of pressure (COPap) were assessed. To calculate COMap, spherical reflective markers were attached at the following anatomical points on the right hemibody: fifth metatarsophalangeal joint, lateral malleolus, lateral knee joint center, greater trochanter and the approximate axis of shoulder rotation (Figure 2DE).

Data were extracted and processed with MATLAB (Mathworks, Natick, MA - RRID:SCR_001622) routines, following preliminary visual inspection of signals for individual trials. Data sampling frequency was set at 200 Hz for kinematics and ground reaction forces. Kinematic and ground reaction force data were digitally low-pass filtered with a cut-off frequency of 10 Hz. Signals were filtered through a dual-pass fourth-order Butterworth filter. Estimation of CoMap displacement was based on the anthropometric model proposed by Winter (Winter, 1991), assuming symmetric displacement between two body sides.

Statistical analysis

Analysis was performed on trial averages of each subject and each stimulation condition (OFF, 60 Hz, 300 Hz) for the four subjects. The following variables were considered: gait time, FoG time, duration and amplitude of APA. We then calculated the percentage of change in the ON (60 Hz and 300 Hz) vs. OFF stimulation conditions using the following calculation: %Change = (ON (60 or 300 Hz)-OFF)/OFF.

Improvement was referred as positive values of % change (decrease in gait time, shortening of FoG time, increasing of the amplitude of APA and decreasing of APA duration). Negative values were considered as performance decline. Group averages of percent change for each variable were compared to the basal condition (OFF, no gain) using Student's t test. p-value set at ≤0.05 for each ON condition (60 and 300 Hz). Analysis was performed using the software Statistica.

References

  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4
  5. 5
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. 9
  10. 10
  11. 11
    Bereitschaftspotential as an Indicator of movement preparation in supplementary motor area and motor cortex
    1. L Deecke
    (1987)
    Ciba Foundation Symposium 132:231–250.
  12. 12
  13. 13
  14. 14
  15. 15
  16. 16
  17. 17
  18. 18
  19. 19
  20. 20
  21. 21
  22. 22
  23. 23
  24. 24
  25. 25
  26. 26
  27. 27
    Gait initiation evaluation after deep brain stimulation for Parkinson's disease: A 7-year follow-up
    1. AS Muniz
    2. W Liu
    3. H Liu
    4. KE Lyons
    5. R Pahwa
    6. J Nadal
    (2010)
    IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. Annual Conference. pp. 3650–3653.
  28. 28
  29. 29
  30. 30
  31. 31
  32. 32
  33. 33
  34. 34
  35. 35
  36. 36
  37. 37
  38. 38
  39. 39
  40. 40
  41. 41
  42. 42
    The Biomechanics and Motor Control of Human Gait: Normal, Elderly and Pathological
    1. DA Winter
    (1991)
    Waterloo: University of Waterloo Press.
  43. 43
    World medical association declaration of Helsinki. ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects
    1. World Medical Association
    (2002)
    Bulletin of the World Health Organization 79:373–374.
  44. 44

Decision letter

  1. Amol Yadav
    Reviewing Editor; Duke University
  2. Richard B Ivry
    Senior Editor; University of California, Berkeley, United States

In the interests of transparency, eLife includes the editorial decision letter and accompanying author responses. A lightly edited version of the letter sent to the authors after peer review is shown, indicating the most substantive concerns; minor comments are not usually included.

Thank you for submitting your article "Effects of spinal cord stimulation on postural control in Parkinson's disease patients with freezing of gait" for consideration by eLife. Your article has been reviewed by two peer reviewers, and the evaluation has been overseen by a Reviewing Editor and Richard Ivry as the Senior Editor. The reviewers have opted to remain anonymous.

The reviewers have discussed the reviews with one another and the Reviewing Editor has drafted this decision to help you prepare a revised submission.

General Assessment:

The reviewers find the attempt to study the effects of SCS on distinct aspects of postural control very interesting, particularly because freezing of fait is a major concern in Parkinson's Disease patients.

Conclusions:

1) Freezing of gait (FoG) is a major feature of Parkinsonism and although SCS seems to be a promising intervention for FoG, its effect on the particular domains of postural control is not known.

2) SCS led to improvement in duration and amplitude of Anticipatory Postural Adjustment (APA).

3) SCS improved FoG and gait time.

4) SCS did not improve Reactive Postural Control (RPC).

5) APA and RPC are managed by different brain circuits and SCS is more effective on APAs but not on RPC due to its influence on the specific circuits that modulate APAs.

This work builds on a previous report from the authors and subsequently aims to identify the effect of SCS on individual aspects of postural control. The objective methods used for quantification of FoG, APA, and RPC such as wireless accelerometers, force platforms, motion analysis systems, and spectrum analysis add to the overall strengths of the paper.

Essential revisions:

The reviewers have highlighted a number of concerns that must be adequately addressed before the paper can be accepted.

1) The rationale for using SCS has been alluded to previous studies in rodents, primates, and humans, however for the convenience of readers it would be worthwhile to add few sentences in the Introduction, to explain the rationale for using SCS for treating PD gait disorders.

2) Figure 1: Needs clarification if time axis in 1A correspond to the same axis in 1C. Vertical axis in D and E need to be clearly labeled.

3) Figure 2 could be improved. Label panel A) as APA and show the duration of APA in the group means. It looks like the peak of APAs also changed but this was not mentioned. B) Label each plot as Gait, APA, RPC, etc. Explain why, in Figure 2B (top), there is lot of change in FoG time and gait time with the placebo 60 Hz stimulation.

4) Although light detection systems are widely used for the evaluation of movement, the authors fail to describe the specific motion analysis system implemented for APA and perturbation response quantification. The Vicon system has a wide variety of products.

5) References need editorial work. Last reference has two different versions. DBS not improving postural responses should include references from St. George et al.

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.37727.006

Author response

Essential revisions:

The reviewers have highlighted a number of concerns that must be adequately addressed before the paper can be accepted.

1) The rationale for using SCS has been alluded to previous studies in rodents, primates, and humans, however for the convenience of readers it would be worthwhile to add few sentences in the Introduction, to explain the rationale for using SCS for treating PD gait disorders.

We added sentences that clarified for the readers how SCS started to be considered a possible new treatment for FoG in PD, and possible neuromodulation of pathways involving brain regions in control of gait initiation.

2) Figure 1: Needs clarification if time axis in 1A correspond to the same axis in 1C. Vertical axis in D and E need to be clearly labeled.

We added the time legend in Graph 1C, which is the same for A1 (time unit of 2s). Vertical axes were labeled on top of each graph.

3) Figure 2 could be improved. Label panel A) as APA and show the duration of APA in the group means. It looks like the peak of APAs also changed but this was not mentioned. B) Label each plot as Gait, APA, RPC, etc. Explain why, in Figure 2B (top), there is lot of change in FoG time and gait time with the placebo 60 Hz stimulation.

We labelled APA in all graphs of panel A, and showed the direction of APA. The duration of APA (time of APA) of group mean is displayed on panel C. The group mean of amplitude of APA (peak) is also shown on panel C. We made clearer the sentence about the increase in amplitude (peak) of APA in the Results section.

We labelled each plot of Figure 2B as suggested. 60Hz was applied as active placebo in the first report and compared to 300Hz, which showed in average better outcomes in gait measures when compared to OFF condition and 60Hz. However, it seems like there are subjects that also experience some response to lower frequencies. As it is not the primary interest in this report, we decided to refer to it as two different active conditions (60Hz and 300Hz) with similar parestesias.

4) Although light detection systems are widely used for the evaluation of movement, the authors fail to describe the specific motion analysis system implemented for APA and perturbation response quantification. The Vicon system has a wide variety of products.

We added the Vicon System details in the “Data collection section”.

5) References need editorial work. Last reference has two different versions. DBS not improving postural responses should include references from St. George et al.

We corrected this imprecision in reference citation.

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.37727.007

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Andrea Cristina de Lima-Pardini

    Centre of Mathematics, Computation and Cognition, Federal University of ABC, São Paulo, Brazil
    Contribution
    Conceptualization, Data curation, Validation, Investigation, Visualization, Methodology, Writing—original draft, Writing—review and editing
    Contributed equally with
    Daniel Boari Coelho
    For correspondence
    andrea.cristina@ufabc.edu.br
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
  2. Daniel Boari Coelho

    1. Human Motor Systems Laboratory, School of Physical Education and Sport, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
    2. Biomedical Engineering, Federal University of ABC, São Paulo, Brazil
    Contribution
    Conceptualization, Data curation, Software, Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing—original draft, Writing—review and editing
    Contributed equally with
    Andrea Cristina de Lima-Pardini
    For correspondence
    daniel.boari@ufabc.edu.br
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-8758-6507
  3. Carolina Pinto Souza

    Department of Neurology, University of São Paulo Medical School, São Paulo, Brazil
    Contribution
    Conceptualization, Data curation, Investigation, Writing—original draft, Writing—review and editing
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
  4. Carolina Oliveira Souza

    Department of Neurology, University of São Paulo Medical School, São Paulo, Brazil
    Contribution
    Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing—review and editing
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
  5. Maria Gabriela dos Santos Ghilardi

    Department of Neurology, University of São Paulo Medical School, São Paulo, Brazil
    Contribution
    Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing—review and editing
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
  6. Tiago Garcia

    Department of Neurology, University of São Paulo Medical School, São Paulo, Brazil
    Contribution
    Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing—review and editing
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
  7. Mariana Voos

    Department of Physical Therapy, Speech and Occupational Therapy, School of Medicine, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
    Contribution
    Methodology, Writing—review and editing
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
  8. Matija Milosevic

    Department of Life Sciences, Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan
    Contribution
    Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing—review and editing
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
  9. Clement Hamani

    1. Division of Neurosurgery, Sunnybrook Research Institute, Harquail Centre for Neuromodulation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
    2. Division of Neurosurgery, Toronto Western Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
    Contribution
    Supervision, Writing—review and editing
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
  10. Luis Augusto Teixeira

    Human Motor Systems Laboratory, School of Physical Education and Sport, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
    Contribution
    Resources, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Writing—review and editing
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
  11. Erich Talamoni Fonoff

    Department of Neurology, University of São Paulo Medical School, São Paulo, Brazil
    Contribution
    Conceptualization, Resources, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Project administration, Writing—review and editing
    For correspondence
    fonoffet@usp.br
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared

Funding

Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (302628)

  • Luis Augusto Teixeira

Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (20265–3)

  • Luis Augusto Teixeira

University of São Paolo

  • Erich Talamoni Fonoff

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by the Division of Functional Neurosurgery, Institute of Psychiatry, Hospital das Clinicas, University of São Paulo Medical School; the Brazilian Council of Science and Technology (CNPq, grant number 302628); and the São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP, grant number 20265–3).

Ethics

Clinical trial registration NCT02388204

Human subjects: The study was approved by the department review board and in the ethics committee at Hospital das Clinicas of University of São Paulo and registered in the national clinical research database (CAPPESQ-HCFMUSP #12690213.0.0000.0068), which requires all participants to be previously instructed about the procedures and to give written informed consent prior to study inclusion. Patients included in the present study participated in the clinical trial and also registered at clinicaltrials.gov (#NCT02388204). All experiments were performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki

Senior Editor

  1. Richard B Ivry, University of California, Berkeley, United States

Reviewing Editor

  1. Amol Yadav, Duke University

Publication history

  1. Received: April 19, 2018
  2. Accepted: July 28, 2018
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: August 2, 2018 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: August 14, 2018 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2018, de Lima-Pardini et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 1,336
    Page views
  • 239
    Downloads
  • 2
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Scopus, Crossref, PubMed Central.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Download citations (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)