Advertisement

Characteristics of Tremor Induced by Lesions of the Cerebellum

  • Andrea Kovács
  • Máté Kiss
  • Nándor Pintér
  • Imre Szirmai
  • Anita KamondiEmail author
Original Paper
  • 19 Downloads

Abstract

It is a clinical experience that acute lesions of the cerebellum induce pathological tremor, which tends to improve. However, quantitative characteristics, imaging correlates, and recovery of cerebellar tremor have not been systematically investigated. We studied the prevalence, quantitative parameters measured with biaxial accelerometry, and recovery of pathological tremor in 68 patients with lesions affecting the cerebellum. We also investigated the correlation between the occurrence and characteristics of tremor and lesion localization using 3D T1-weighted MRI images which were normalized and segmented according to a spatially unbiased atlas template for the cerebellum. Visual assessment detected pathological tremor in 19% while accelerometry in 47% of the patients. Tremor was present both in postural and intentional positions, but never at rest. Two types of pathological tremor were distinguished: (1) low-frequency tremor in 36.76% of patients (center frequency 2.66 ± 1.17 Hz) and (2) normal frequency–high-intensity tremor in 10.29% (center frequency 8.79 ± 1.43 Hz). The size of the lesion did not correlate with the presence or severity of tremor. Involvement of the anterior lobe and lobule VI was related to high tremor intensity. In all followed up patients with acute cerebellar ischemia, the tremor completely recovered within 8 weeks. Our results indicate that cerebellar lesions might induce pathological postural and intentional tremor of 2–3 Hz frequency. Due to its low frequency and low amplitude, quantitative tremorometry is neccessary to properly identify it. There is no tight correlation between lesion localization and quantitative characteristics of cerebellar tremor.

Keywords

Tremor Cerebellum Recovery Frequency Accelerometry 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to our patients and to our colleagues of the National Institute of Clinical Neurosciences who were involved in patient management. We aknowledge the contribution of Gréta Zaja to data processing. We thank Dr. András Horváth for his valuable comments on the manuscript.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

The study was approved by the local ethical committee of the Institute. Subjects’ informed consent was obtained according to the Declaration of Helsinki.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

12311_2019_1027_Fig6_ESM.png (447 kb)
Supplementary Figure 1.

The relation of center and peak frequency in controls and in patients with physiologic and pathological tremor. a. Box-plot illustration of center frequency and peak frequency in the three groups in postural position. Data of 68 patients and 30 controls are summarized. Center frequency does not differ between controls and patients with physiologic tremor, however in patients with pathological tremor, it is decreased, and it is almost identical to the low peak frequency of this cohort. b. Bimodal power spectra of a control subject with physiologic tremor, showing center frequency (black) and peak frequency (red). Power spectra of patients with physiologic tremor showed the same pattern. c. Unimodal power spectra of patient 24MJ with pathological tremor, showing overlapping center frequency (black) and peak frequency (red). (PNG 446 kb)

12311_2019_1027_MOESM1_ESM.tif (303 kb)
High Resolution Image (TIF 302 kb)
12311_2019_1027_Fig7_ESM.png (549 kb)
Supplementary Figure 2.

Power spectra presenting gradual increase of center frequency and frequency dispersion of cerebellar tremor as sign of recovery after acute ischemic cerebellar lesion. a. Power spectrum of postural tremor in a patient 4 days after he suffered acute cerebellar stroke. Center frequency and peak frequency were almost the same (CF=2.6 Hz, PF=2.51 Hz), while frequency dispersion was remarkably low (FD=0.19 Hz); b. By day 10, center frequency became higher and it was clearly distinguishable from the peak frequency (CF=2.9 Hz, PF=2.19 Hz). The proportion of higher frequencies in the power spectrum increased which was demonstrated by the elevated frequency dispersion (FD=2.02 Hz); c. By day 21 both the center frequency (CF=5.7 Hz) and the frequency dispersion (FD=3.47 Hz) became normal. The peak frequency did not change (PF=2.19 Hz). Red line: peak frequency; Continuous black line: center frequency; Dashed line; lower and upper values of frequency dispersion. (PNG 548 kb)

12311_2019_1027_MOESM2_ESM.tif (295 kb)
High Resolution Image (TIF 294 kb)
12311_2019_1027_MOESM3_ESM.docx (17 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 17 kb)
12311_2019_1027_MOESM4_ESM.docx (19 kb)
ESM 2 (DOCX 19 kb)
12311_2019_1027_MOESM5_ESM.docx (54 kb)
ESM 3 (DOCX 54 kb)
12311_2019_1027_MOESM6_ESM.docx (21 kb)
ESM 4 (DOCX 21 kb)
12311_2019_1027_MOESM7_ESM.docx (20 kb)
ESM 5 (DOCX 20 kb)
12311_2019_1027_MOESM8_ESM.docx (15 kb)
ESM 6 (DOCX 15 kb)
12311_2019_1027_MOESM9_ESM.docx (16 kb)
ESM 7 (DOCX 15 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Deuschl G, Bain P, Brin M. Consensus statement of the Movement Disorder Society on Tremor. Ad Hoc Scientific Committee. Mov Disord United States. 1998;13(Suppl 3):2–23.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bhatia KP, Bain P, Bajaj N, Elble RJ, Hallett M, Louis ED, et al. Consensus Statement on the classification of tremors. from the task force on tremor of the International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society. Mov Disord United States. 2018;33:75–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ferrier DT. A Record of experiments illustrative of the symptomatology and degenerations following lesions of the cerebellum and its peduncles and related structures in monkeys. Philos Trans R Soc London [Internet]. 1894;185:719 LP–778.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Atkin A, Kozlovskaya IB. Effects of cooling cerebellar nuclei on evoked forearm oscillations. Exp Neurol [Internet] Academic Press. 1976 [cited 2018 Apr 6];50:766–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Flament D, Hore J. Comparison of cerebellar intention tremor under isotonic and isometric conditions. Brain Res Netherlands. 1988;439:179–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Poirier LJ, Lafleur J, de Lean J, Guiot G, Larochelle L, Boucher R. Physiopathology of the cerebellum in the monkey. 2. Motor disturbances associated with partial and complete destruction of cerebellar structures. J Neurol Sci Netherlands. 1974;22:491–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Larochelle L, Bedard P, Boucher R, Poirier LJ. The rubro-olivo-cerebello-rubral loop and postural tremor in the monkey. J Neurol Sci Netherlands. 1970;11:53–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Park YG, Park HY, Lee CJ, Choi S, Jo S, Choi H, et al. Ca(V)3.1 is a tremor rhythm pacemaker in the inferior olive. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A United States. 2010;107:10731–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Holmes G. The Croonian Lectures. On the clinical symptoms of cerebellar disease and their interpretation. Lancet [Internet] Elsevier. 1922;199:1177–82.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lawrenson C, Bares M, Kamondi A, Kovacs A, Lumb B, Apps R, et al. The mystery of the cerebellum: clues from experimental and clinical observations. Cerebellum & ataxias England. 2018;5:8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cole JD, Philip HI, Sedgwick EM. Stability and tremor in the fingers associated with cerebellar hemisphere and cerebellar tract lesions in man. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry England. 1988;51:1558–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Milanov I. Electromyographic differentiation of tremors. Clin Neurophysiol Netherlands. 2001;112:1626–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Louis ED, Lynch T, Ford B, Greene P, Bressman SB, Fahn S. Delayed-onset cerebellar syndrome. Arch Neurol United States. 1996;53:450–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Elble RJ. Origins of tremor. Lancet (London, England). 2000;355:1113–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Marek M, Paus S, Allert N, Madler B, Klockgether T, Urbach H, et al. Ataxia and tremor due to lesions involving cerebellar projection pathways: a DTI tractographic study in six patients. J Neurol Germany. 2015;262:54–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Coenen VA, Allert N, Paus S, Kronenburger M, Urbach H, Madler B. Modulation of the cerebello-thalamo-cortical network in thalamic deep brain stimulation for tremor: a diffusion tensor imaging study. Neurosurgery United States. 2014;75:657–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Timmann D, Konczak J, Ilg W, Donchin O, Hermsdorfer J, Gizewski ER, et al. Current advances in lesion-symptom mapping of the human cerebellum. Neuroscience United States. 2009;162:836–51.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schmahmann JD, Doyon J, McDonald D, Holmes C, Lavoie K, Hurwitz AS, et al. Three-dimensional MRI atlas of the human cerebellum in proportional stereotaxic space. Neuroimage United States. 1999;10:233–60.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Diedrichsen J, Balsters JH, Flavell J, Cussans E, Ramnani N. A probabilistic MR atlas of the human cerebellum. Neuroimage United States. 2009;46:39–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Diedrichsen J, Maderwald S, Kuper M, Thurling M, Rabe K, Gizewski ER, et al. Imaging the deep cerebellar nuclei: a probabilistic atlas and normalization procedure. Neuroimage United States. 2011;54:1786–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    van Baarsen KM, Kleinnijenhuis M, Jbabdi S, Sotiropoulos SN, Grotenhuis JA, van Cappellen van Walsum AM. A probabilistic atlas of the cerebellar white matter. Neuroimage United States. 2016;124:724–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Grodd W, Hulsmann E, Lotze M, Wildgruber D, Erb M. Sensorimotor mapping of the human cerebellum: fMRI evidence of somatotopic organization. Hum Brain Mapp United States. 2001;13:55–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Stoodley CJ, Schmahmann JD. Evidence for topographic organization in the cerebellum of motor control versus cognitive and affective processing. Cortex Italy. 2010;46:831–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Schlerf JE, Verstynen TD, Ivry RB, Spencer RMC. Evidence of a novel somatopic map in the human neocerebellum during complex actions. J Neurophysiol United States. 2010;103:3330–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Konczak J, Pierscianek D, Hirsiger S, Bultmann U, Schoch B, Gizewski ER, et al. Recovery of upper limb function after cerebellar stroke: lesion symptom mapping and arm kinematics. Stroke United States. 2010;41:2191–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ashe J, Bushara K. The olivo-cerebellar system as a neural clock. Adv Exp Med Biol United States. 2014;829:155–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bostan AC, Dum RP, Strick PL. Cerebellar networks with the cerebral cortex and basal ganglia. Trends Cogn Sci Elsevier. 2013;17:241–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Helmich RC, Janssen MJR, Oyen WJG, Bloem BR, Toni I. Pallidal dysfunction drives a cerebellothalamic circuit into Parkinson tremor. Ann Neurol United States. 2011;69:269–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Farkas Z, Szirmai I, Kamondi A. Impaired rhythm generation in essential tremor. Mov Disord United States. 2006;21:1196–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Louis ED, Vonsattel JPG. The emerging neuropathology of essential tremor. Mov Disord United States. 2008;23:174–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Shill HA, Adler CH, Sabbagh MN, Connor DJ, Caviness JN, Hentz JG, et al. Pathologic findings in prospectively ascertained essential tremor subjects. Neurology United States. 2008;70:1452–5.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Nicoletti G, Manners D, Novellino F, Condino F, Malucelli E, Barbiroli B, et al. Diffusion tensor MRI changes in cerebellar structures of patients with familial essential tremor. Neurology United States. 2010;74:988–94.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Broersma M, van der Stouwe AMM, Buijink AWG, de Jong BM, Groot PFC, Speelman JD, et al. Bilateral cerebellar activation in unilaterally challenged essential tremor. NeuroImage Clin Netherlands. 2016;11:1–9.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Benito-Leon J, Labiano-Fontcuberta A. Linking essential tremor to the cerebellum: clinical evidence. Cerebellum United States. 2016;15:253–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Filip P, Lungu OV, Manto MU, Bares M. Linking essential tremor to the cerebellum: physiological evidence. Cerebellum United States. 2016;15:774–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Dash SK, Stezin A, Takalkar T, George L, Kamble NL, Netravathi M, et al. Abnormalities of white and grey matter in early multiple system atrophy: comparison of parkinsonian and cerebellar variants. Eur Radiol Germany. 2019 Feb;29(2):716–724.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Adanyeguh IM, Perlbarg V, Henry P-G, Rinaldi D, Petit E, Valabregue R, et al. Autosomal dominant cerebellar ataxias: imaging biomarkers with high effect sizes. NeuroImage Clin Netherlands. 2018;19:858–67.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wang JY, Hessl D, Hagerman RJ, Simon TJ, Tassone F, Ferrer E, et al. Abnormal trajectories in cerebellum and brainstem volumes in carriers of the fragile X premutation. Neurobiol Aging United States. 2017;55:11–9.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Sasaki R, Maki F, Hara D, Tanaka S, Hasegawa Y. Stratification of disease progression in a broad spectrum of degenerative cerebellar ataxias with a clustering method using MRI-based atrophy rates of brain structures. Cerebellum & ataxias England. 2017;4:9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Gironell A, Kulisevsky J, Pascual-Sedano B, Barbanoj M. Routine neurophysiologic tremor analysis as a diagnostic tool for essential tremor: a prospective study. J Clin Neurophysiol United States. 2004;21:446–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Elble R, Bain P, Forjaz MJ, Haubenberger D, Testa C, Goetz CG, et al. Task force report: scales for screening and evaluating tremor: critique and recommendations. Mov Disord United States. 2013;28:1793–800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Farkas Z, Gulyas S, Molnar R, Szirmai I, Kamondi A. Quantitative analysis of motor performance in epilepsy patients treated with valproate. Seizure England. 2010;19:173–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Bast-Pettersen R, Ulvestad B, Faerden K, Clemm TAC, Olsen R, Ellingsen DG, et al. Tremor and hand-arm vibration syndrome (HAVS) in road maintenance workers. Int Arch Occup Environ Health Germany. 2017;90:93–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Edwards R, Beuter A. Indexes for identification of abnormal tremor using computer tremor evaluation systems. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng United States. 1999;46:895–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Farkas Z, Csillik A, Szirmai I, Kamondi A. Asymmetry of tremor intensity and frequency in Parkinson’s disease and essential tremor. Parkinsonism Relat Disord England. 2006;12:49–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Elble RJ. Central mechanisms of tremor. J Clin Neurophysiol United States. 1996;13:133–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Despres C, Richer F, Roberge M-C, Lamoureux D, Beuter A. Standardization of quantitative tests for preclinical detection of neuromotor dysfunctions in pediatric neurotoxicology. Neurotoxicology Netherlands. 2005;26:385–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Diedrichsen J. A spatially unbiased atlas template of the human cerebellum. Neuroimage United States. 2006;33:127–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Diedrichsen J, Zotow E. Surface-based display of volume-averaged cerebellar imaging data. PLoS One United States. 2015;10:e0133402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Meigal AY, Rissanen SM, Tarvainen MP, Georgiadis SD, Karjalainen PA, Airaksinen O, et al. Linear and nonlinear tremor acceleration characteristics in patients with Parkinson’s disease. Physiol Meas England. 2012;33:395–412.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Kovacs N, Balas I, Illes Z, Kellenyi L, Doczi TP, Czopf J, et al. Uniform qualitative electrophysiological changes in postoperative rest tremor. Mov Disord United States. 2006;21:318–24.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    di Biase L, Brittain JS, Shah SA, Pedrosa DJ, Cagnan H, Mathy A, et al. Tremor stability index: a new tool for differential diagnosis in tremor syndromes. Brain [Internet]. 2017;140:1977–86.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Wastensson G, Holmberg B, Johnels B, Barregard L, et al. Tremor Other Hyperkinet Mov (N Y) [Internet] Columbia University Libraries/Information Services. 2013;3:tre-03-196-4279-2.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Papapetropoulos S, Katzen HL, Scanlon BK, Guevara A, Singer C, Levin BE. Objective quantification of neuromotor symptoms in Parkinson’s disease: implementation of a portable, computerized measurement tool. Park Dis Hindawi. 2010;760196Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Xu CY, Yin HM, Zhang BR. Evaluating the electrophysiological features of tremor in Parkinson’s disease and essential tremor using accelerometry. Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi China. 2016;96:3289–93.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Beuter A, Edwards R. Using frequency domain characteristics to discriminate physiologic and parkinsonian tremors. J Clin Neurophysiol United States. 1999;16:484–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Schmahmann JD, MacMore J, Vangel M. Cerebellar stroke without motor deficit: clinical evidence for motor and non-motor domains within the human cerebellum. Neuroscience [Internet]. 2009;162:852–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Wolfgang G, Ernst H, Martin L, Dirk W, Michael E. Sensorimotor mapping of the human cerebellum: fMRI evidence of somatotopic organization. Hum Brain Mapp [Internet] Wiley-Blackwell. 2001;13:55–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Louis ED, Lenka A. The olivary hypothesis of essential tremor: time to lay this model to rest? Tremor Other Hyperkinet Mov (NY) United States. 2017;7:473.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Hoshi E, Tremblay L, Féger J, Carras PL, Strick PL. The cerebellum communicates with the basal ganglia. Nat Neurosci Nat Publ Group. 2005;8:1491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Bostan AC, Strick PL. The cerebellum and basal ganglia are interconnected. Neuropsychol Rev United States. 2010;20:261–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Timmermann L, Gross J, Dirks M, Volkmann J, Freund H, Schnitzler A. The cerebral oscillatory network of parkinsonian resting tremor. Brain Oxford University Press. 2002;126:199–212.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Wu T, Hallett M. The cerebellum in Parkinson’s disease. Brain England. 2013;136:696–709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Bares M, Lungu OV, Liu T, Waechter T, Gomez CM, Ashe J. The neural substrate of predictive motor timing in spinocerebellar ataxia. Cerebellum United States. 2011;10:233–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Lungu OV, Bares M, Liu T, Gomez CM, Cechova I, Ashe J. Trial-to-trial adaptation: parsing out the roles of cerebellum and BG in predictive motor timing. J Cogn Neurosci United States. 2016;28:920–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Kim M-S, Tak HJ, Son SM. Recovery of cerebellar peduncle injury in a patient with a cerebellar tumor: validation by diffusion tensor tractography. Neural Regen Res India. 2014;9:1929–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Kakei S, Ishikawa T, Lee J, Honda T, Hoffman DS. Physiological and morphological principles underpinning recruitment of the cerebellar reserve. CNS Neurol Disord Drug Targets United Arab Emirates. 2018.17(3):184–192.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Gironell A, Ribosa-Nogue R, Gich I, Marin-Lahoz J, Pascual-Sedano B. Severity stages in essential tremor: a long-term retrospective study using the glass scale. Tremor Other Hyperkinet Mov (NY) United States. 2015;5:299.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Kaindlstorfer C, Granata R, Wenning GK. Tremor in multiple system atrophy—a review. Tremor Other Hyperkinet Mov (NY) [Internet]. 2013;3:tre-03-165-4252-1.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Zhang J, Xing Y, Ma X, Feng L. Differential diagnosis of Parkinson disease, essential tremor, and enhanced physiological tremor with the tremor analysis of EMG. Parkinsons Dis [Internet] Hindawi. 2017;2017:1597907.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Louis ED, Pullman SL. Comparison of clinical vs. electrophysiological methods of diagnosing of essential tremor. Mov Disord [Internet] Wiley. 2001;16:668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Fanciulli A, Wenning GK. Multiple-system atrophy. N Engl J Med Mass Medical Soc. 2015;372:249–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrea Kovács
    • 1
    • 2
  • Máté Kiss
    • 3
  • Nándor Pintér
    • 4
  • Imre Szirmai
    • 5
  • Anita Kamondi
    • 1
    • 5
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of NeurologyNational Institute of Clinical NeurosciencesBudapestHungary
  2. 2.János Szentágothai Doctoral School of NeurosciencesSemmelweis UniversityBudapestHungary
  3. 3.Department of NeuroradiologyNational Institute of Clinical NeurosciencesBudapestHungary
  4. 4.Department of Neuroimaging ResearchDent Neurologic InstituteAmherstUSA
  5. 5.Department of NeurologySemmelweis UniversityBudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations