Deflating the deep brain stimulation causes personality changes bubble: the authors reply

To conclude that there is enough or not enough evidence demonstrating that deep brain stimulation (DBS) causes unintended postoperative personality changes is an epistemic problem that should be answered on the basis of established, replicable, and valid data. If prospective DBS recipients delay or refuse to be implanted because they are afraid of suffering from personality changes following DBS, and their fears are based on unsubstantiated claims made in the neuroethics literature, then researchers making these claims bear great responsibility for prospective recipients' medical decisions and subsequent well-being. Our article “Deflating the ‘DBS causes personality’ bubble” reported an increase in theoretical neuroethics publications suggesting putative DBS-induced changes to personality, identity, agency, autonomy, authenticity and/or self (PIAAAS) and a critical lack of supporting primary empirical studies. This special issue of Neuroethics brings together responses to our initial publication, with our own counter-responses organized according to common themes. We provide a brief summary for each commentary and its main criticisms as well as a discussion of the way in which these responses can: 1) help clarify the meaning of PIAAAS, suggesting supplementary frameworks for understanding the impact of DBS on PIAAAS; 2) provide further empirical evidence of PIAAAS by presenting results from the researchers’ own work; and/or 3) offer a critique of our research approach and/or findings. Unintended postoperative putative changes to PIAAAS remain a critical ethical concern. It is beyond dispute that we need to develop reliable empirical and conceptual instruments able to measure complex cognitive, affective, and behavioural changes in order to investigate whether they are attributable to DBS alone

[Usefulness of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in psychiatric disorders].

International audienceMental disorders represent a concern for the public health because of their prevalence in the general population. Despite progress in psychopharmacology, 20-30 % of the patients suffering of depressive disorders are responding only partially to different pharmacological and psychological therapeutic strategies. Until recently, the therapeutic alternative in refractory depression was the electroconvulsive therapy. New therapeutic approaches should be therefore explored. In October 2008 repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation was approved as an antidepressive monotherapy by the FDA, opening the way to a routine application of this technique, which will supplement the body of our therapeutic armamentarium for mood disorders. We review this new therapeutic approach, which is rapidly developing for treating depression and schizophrenia

A randomized controlled double-blind study of rotigotine on neuropsychiatric symptoms in de novo PD.

Management of apathy, depression and anxiety in Parkinson's disease (PD) represents a challenge. Dopamine agonists have been suggested to be effective. This multicenter, randomized (1:1), double-blind study assessed the 6-month effect of rotigotine versus placebo on apathy, depression and anxiety in de novo PD. The primary outcome was the change of apathy, measured with the LARS. The secondary outcomes were the change in depression and anxiety, measured with BDI-2 and STAI-trait and state. Forty-eight drug-naive PD patients were included. The primary outcome was not reached, with a surprisingly high placebo effect on apathy (60%). There was no significant difference in the change of depression at 6 months between rotigotine and placebo. Trait-anxiety was significantly improved by rotigotine compared to placebo (p = 0.04). Compared to placebo, low dose rotigotine significantly improved trait anxiety, but not apathy and depression. The major placebo effect on apathy points towards the importance of a multidisciplinary and tight follow-up in the management of neuropsychiatric symptoms

Hallucinations and Imagination

There is a strong overlap between imagined and hallucinatory phenomena in the sense that both are internal representations of external things that are not present at the time. Relationships between hallucinations and wider aspects of imagination are complex and individual, with a lack of systematic evidence. There appears to be a close relationship between the brain areas responsible for veridical, imagined, and hallucinatory perception, though more data is needed. However, how activity varies within and outside these areas in order to create different types of imagination is not at all clear. Drug effects provide one avenue for systematically exploring links between hallucinations and imagination. Drugs that cause hallucinations also tend to affect wider imagination and creativity, though results are variable and are open to alternative explanations. Nevertheless, these effects suggest that wider, non-perceptual, brain systems are involved in the generation of imaginative responses to hallucinations. Future investigations need to define imagination more closely, have tighter designs, and combine approaches

Psychostimulant effect of levodopa: reversing sensitisation is possible

Levodopa therapy in Parkinson's disease (PD) is associated with non-motor complications resulting from sensitisation of the ventral striatum system. Recent studies showed an improvement in non-motor complications in PD patients with subthalamic stimulation. We hypothesised that ventral striatum desensitisation might contribute to this improvement