Page 125 - Migraine, the heart and the brain
P. 125

                                Cerebellar function and ischemic brain lesions in migraine
                                                                                                                                                  Figure 2. Prism adaptation task in non-migraine controls, migraine patients with or without aura, and patients with FHM1. (a) The prism adaption experiment consisted of  ve phases in which participants had to move their hand to a visible target with or without visible feedback of their hand and with or without wearing prism glasses. In the adaptation phase (phase 4) participants learned to align their hand movements to the target that was visually shifted due to the prism glasses. (b) Individual raw hand movements in phase 2 (pre-adaptation) and phase 5 (post-adaptation) of four participants show that wearing prism glasses induces changes in hand movements, except for the FHM1 patient. (c) Overall, the prism adaptation effect was present in the control group and both groups of migraine patients, whereas the FHM1 group showed no prism adaptation effect. FHM1: familial hemiplegic migraine type 1.
Eyeblink conditioning. We performed eyeblink conditioning in 104/282 (37%) 7 participants (38 MA, 35 MO, and 31 controls). Latency to onset, latency to peak-time, peak-amplitude, and percentage of conditioned responses did not differ between the
three study groups (Figure 3 d-g; Table 5). Adjusting for gender and age did not alter
these  ndings. Cerebellar ischaemic lesions were found in 6/103 of the participants who also underwent MRI; three with MA, two with MO, and one control. Four of these lesions were located in the posterior paravermis and two in the posterior hemisphere, but none in the critical eyeblink region HVI (10,23) (see also supplemental table). No differences in latency to peak-time (p= 0.5) or peakamplitude (p=0.1) of the conditioned responses were found between participants with and without cerebellar ischaemic lesions. In participants with FHM1 (n=11) mean latency to onset and peak-time of conditioned responses deviated signi cantly (p=0.001 and p=0.01, respectively) from the other study groups; both time points occurred earlier,
123
 




























































































   123   124   125   126   127