Advertisement

Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 235, Issue 3, pp 949–956 | Cite as

Electromyographic assessment of paratonia

  • Lucio Marinelli
  • Laura Mori
  • Matteo Pardini
  • David Beversdorf
  • Leonardo Cocito
  • Antonio Currà
  • Francesco Fattapposta
  • Maria Felice Ghilardi
  • Giovanni Abbruzzese
  • Carlo Trompetto
Research Article

Abstract

Many years after its initial description, paratonia remains a poorly understood concept. It is described as the inability to relax muscles during muscle tone assessment with the subject involuntary facilitating or opposing the examiner. Although related to cognitive impairment and frontal lobe function, the underlying mechanisms have not been clarified. Moreover, criteria to distinguish oppositional paratonia from parkinsonian rigidity or spasticity are not yet available. Paratonia is very frequently encountered in clinical practice and only semi-quantitative rating scales are available. The purpose of this study is to assess the feasibility of a quantitative measure of paratonia using surface electromyography. Paratonia was elicited by performing consecutive metronome-synchronized continuous and discontinuous elbow movements in a group of paratonic patients with cognitive impairment. Goniometric and electromyographic recordings were performed on biceps and triceps brachii muscles. Facilitatory (mitgehen) and oppositional (gegenhalten) paratonia could be recorded on both muscles. After normalization with voluntary maximal contraction, biceps showed higher paratonia than triceps. Facilitatory paratonia was higher than oppositional on the biceps. Movement repetition induced increased paratonic burst amplitude only when flexion and extension movements were performed continuously. Both facilitatory and oppositional paratonia increased with movement repetition. Only oppositional paratonia increased following faster movements. This is the first study providing a quantitative and objective characterization of paratonia using electromyography. Unlike parkinsonian rigidity, oppositional paratonia increases with velocity and with consecutive movement repetition. Like spasticity, oppositional paratonia is velocity-dependent, but different from spasticity, it increases during movement repetition instead of decreasing. A quantitative measure of paratonia could help better understanding its pathophysiology and could be used for research purposes on cognitive impairment.

Keywords

Paratonia Frontal lobe Electromyography Cognitive impairment Spasticity Movements 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Dr. Beversdorf is the Thompson Center William and Nancy Thompson Endowed Chair in Radiology.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

None of the authors have potential conflicts of interest to be disclosed.

References

  1. AL-Zamil ZM, Hassan N, Hassan W (1995) Reduction of elbow flexor and extensor spasticity following muscle stretch. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 9:161–165. doi: 10.1177/154596839500900305 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bennett HP, Corbett AJ, Gaden S et al (2002) Subcortical vascular disease and functional decline: a 6-year predictor study. J Am Geriatr Soc 50:1969–1977CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Beversdorf DQ, Heilman KM (1998) Facilitory paratonia and frontal lobe functioning. Neurology 51:968–971CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Blanc Y, Dimanico U (2010) Electrode placement in surface electromyography (sEMG) “Minimal Crosstalk Area” (MCA). Open Rehabil J 3:110–126. doi: 10.2174/1874943701003010110 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brouwer B, Hopkins-Rosseel DH (1997) Motor cortical mapping of proximal upper extremity muscles following spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord 35:205–212CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Damasceno A, Delicio AM, Mazo DFC et al (2005) Primitive reflexes and cognitive function. Arq Neuropsiquiatr 63:577–582. doi: 10.1590/S0004-282X2005000400004 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Dupré E (1910) Débilité mentale et débilité motrice associées. Rev Neurol (Paris) 20:54–56Google Scholar
  8. Hermens HJ, Roessingh Research and Development BV (eds) (1999) European recommendations for surface ElectroMyoGraphy: results of the SENIAM project. Roessingh Research and Development, EnschedeGoogle Scholar
  9. Hobbelen JSM, Koopmans RTCM, Verhey FRJ et al (2008) Diagnosing paratonia in the demented elderly: reliability and validity of the Paratonia Assessment Instrument (PAI). Int Psychogeriatr IPA 20:840–852. doi: 10.1017/S1041610207006424 Google Scholar
  10. Hobbelen JSM, Tan FES, Verhey FRJ et al (2011) Prevalence, incidence and risk factors of paratonia in patients with dementia: a one-year follow-up study. Int Psychogeriatr IPA 23:1051–1060. doi: 10.1017/S1041610210002449 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kleiner-Fisman G, Khoo E, Moncrieffe N et al (2014) A randomized, placebo controlled pilot trial of botulinum toxin for paratonic rigidity in people with advanced cognitive impairment. PLoS ONE 9:e114733. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0114733 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Kral VA (1949) Ueber eine iterative Bewegunsstörung bei Stirnhirnläsionen. Monatsschr Psychiatr Neurol 118:257–272CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Kurlan R, Richard IH, Papka M, Marshall F (2000) Movement disorders in Alzheimer’s disease: more rigidity of definitions is needed. Mov Disord 15:24–29CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Lance JW (1980) Symposium synopsis. In: Feldman RG, Young RR, Koella WP (eds) Spasticity: disordered motor control. pp 485–494Google Scholar
  15. Marinelli L, Trompetto C, Mori L et al (2013) Manual linear movements to assess spasticity in a clinical setting. PLoS ONE 8:e53627CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Meara RJ, Cody FW (1992) Relationship between electromyographic activity and clinically assessed rigidity studied at the wrist joint in Parkinson’s disease. Brain 115(Pt 4):1167–1180CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Mumenthaler M (1990) Neurology, 3rd edn. Thieme, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  18. Pauc R, Young A (2012) Paratonia and gegenhalten in childhood and senescence. Clin Chiropr 15:31–34. doi: 10.1016/j.clch.2011.08.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Strauss E, Sherman EMS, Spreen O, Spreen O (2006) A compendium of neuropsychological tests: administration, norms, and commentary, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Trompetto C, Marinelli L, Mori L et al (2014) Pathophysiology of spasticity: implications for neurorehabilitation. BioMed Res Int 2014:354906. doi: 10.1155/2014/354906 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Vahia I, Cohen CI, Prehogan A, Memon Z (2007) Prevalence and impact of paratonia in Alzheimer disease in a multiracial sample. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry Off J Am Assoc Geriatr Psychiatry 15:351–353. doi: 10.1097/JGP.0b013e31802ea907 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lucio Marinelli
    • 1
  • Laura Mori
    • 1
  • Matteo Pardini
    • 1
  • David Beversdorf
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
  • Leonardo Cocito
    • 1
  • Antonio Currà
    • 6
  • Francesco Fattapposta
    • 7
  • Maria Felice Ghilardi
    • 8
  • Giovanni Abbruzzese
    • 1
  • Carlo Trompetto
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Neurology, Department of Neuroscience, Rehabilitation, Ophthalmology, Genetics, Maternal and Child HealthUniversity of GenovaGenoaItaly
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyUniversity of MissouriColumbiaUSA
  3. 3.Department of NeurologyUniversity of MissouriColumbiaUSA
  4. 4.Department of Psychological SciencesUniversity of MissouriColumbiaUSA
  5. 5.The Thompson Center for Neurodevelopmental DisordersUniversity of MissouriColumbiaUSA
  6. 6.Academic Neurology Unit, A. Fiorini Hospital, Terracina (LT), Department of Medical-Surgical Sciences and BiotechnologiesSapienza University of RomeLatinaItaly
  7. 7.Neurology Unit, Policlinico Umberto I, Department of Neurology and PsichiatrySapienza University of RomeRomeItaly
  8. 8.Department of Physiology, Pharmacology and NeuroscienceCity University of New York Medical SchoolNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations