Search

Lesions in the Guillain–Mollaret (G–M) triangle frequently cause various types of tremors or tremor-like movements. Nevertheless, we know relatively little about their generation mechanisms. The deep cerebellar nuclei (DCN), which is a primary node of the triangle, has two main output paths: the primary excitatory path to the thalamus, the red nucleus (RN), and other brain stem nuclei, and the secondary inhibitory path to the inferior olive (IO). The inhibitory path contributes to the dentato-olivo-cerebellar loop (the short loop), while the excitatory path contributes to the cerebrocerebellar loop (the long loop). We propose a novel hypothesis: each loop contributes to physiologically distinct type of tremors or tremor-like movements. One type of irregular tremor-like movement is caused by a lesion in the cerebrocerebellar loop, which includes the primary path. A lesion in this loop affects the cerebellar forward model and deteriorates its accuracy of prediction and compensation of the feedback delay, resulting in irregular instability of voluntary motor control, i.e., cerebellar ataxia (CA). Therefore, this type of tremor, such as kinetic tremor, is usually associated with other symptoms of CA such as dysmetria. We call this type of tremor forward model-related tremor. The second type of regular tremor appears to be correlated with synchronized oscillation of IO neurons due, at least in animal models, to reduced degrees of freedom in IO activities. The regular burst activity of IO neurons is precisely transmitted along the cerebellocerebral path to the motor cortex before inducing rhythmical reciprocal activities of agonists and antagonists, i.e., tremor. We call this type of tremor IO-oscillation-related tremor. Although this type of regular tremor does not necessarily accompany ataxia, the aberrant IO activities (i.e., aberrant CS activities) may induce secondary maladaptation of cerebellar forward models through aberrant patterns of long-term depression (LTD) and/or long-term potentiation (LTP) of the cerebellar circuitry. Although our hypothesis does not cover all tremors or tremor-like movement disorders, our approach integrates the latest theories of cerebellar physiology and provides explanations how various lesions in or around the G–M triangle results in tremors or tremor-like movements. We propose that tremor results from errors in predictions carried out by the cerebellar circuitry.

Current assessment of patients with cerebellar disorders is based on conventional neurological examination that is dependent on subjective judgements. Quantitative measurement of cerebellar ataxias (CAs) is essential for assessment of evidence-based treatments and the monitoring of the progress or recovery of diseases. It may provide us a useful tool to navigate future treatments for ataxia. We developed a Kinect v2. sensor system with a novel algorithm to measure and evaluate movements for two tests of Scale for the Assessment and Rating of Ataxia (SARA): the nose-finger test and gait. For the nose-finger test, we evaluated and compared accuracy, regularities and smoothness in the movements of the index finger and the proximal limbs between cerebellar patients and control subjects. For the task of walking, we evaluated and compared stability between the two groups. The precision of the system for evaluation of movements was smaller than 2 mm. For the nose-finger test, the mildly affected patients tended to show more instability than the control subjects. For a severely affected patient, our system quantified the instability of movements of the index finger using kinematic parameters, such as fluctuations and average speed. The average speed appears to be the most sensitive parameter that contrasts between patients with CAs and control subjects. Furthermore, our system also detected the adventitious movements of more proximal body parts, such as the elbow, shoulder and head. Assessment of walking was possible only in patients with mild CAs. They demonstrated large sways and compensatory wide stances. These parameters appeared to show higher accuracy than SARA. This examiner-independent device measures movements of the points of interest of SARA more accurately than eye and further provides additional information about the ataxic movements (e.g., the adventitious movements of the elbow, shoulder and head in the nose-finger test and the wide-based walking with large oscillation in the gait task), which is out of the scope of SARA. Our new system enables more accurate scoring of SARA and further provides additional information that is not currently evaluated with SARA. Therefore, it provides an easier, more accurate and more systematic description of CAs.