MRI-based assessment of the pineal gland in a large population of children aged 0-5 years and comparison with pineoblastoma: part I, the solid gland.

Differentiation between normal solid (non-cystic) pineal glands and pineal pathologies on brain MRI is difficult. The aim of this study was to assess the size of the solid pineal gland in children (0-5 years) and compare the findings with published pineoblastoma cases. We retrospectively analyzed the size (width, height, planimetric area) of solid pineal glands in 184 non-retinoblastoma patients (73 female, 111 male) aged 0-5 years on MRI. The effect of age and gender on gland size was evaluated. Linear regression analysis was performed to analyze the relation between size and age. Ninety-nine percent prediction intervals around the mean were added to construct a normal size range per age, with the upper bound of the predictive interval as the parameter of interest as a cutoff for normalcy. There was no significant interaction of gender and age for all the three pineal gland parameters (width, height, and area). Linear regression analysis gave 99 % upper prediction bounds of 7.9, 4.8, and 25.4 mm(2), respectively, for width, height, and area. The slopes (size increase per month) of each parameter were 0.046, 0.023, and 0.202, respectively. Ninety-three percent (95 % CI 66-100 %) of asymptomatic solid pineoblastomas were larger in size than the 99 % upper bound. This study establishes norms for solid pineal gland size in non-retinoblastoma children aged 0-5 years. Knowledge of the size of the normal pineal gland is helpful for detection of pineal gland abnormalities, particularly pineoblastoma

Can we improve slow learning in cerebellar patients?

We tested whether training paradigms targeting slow learning alleviate motor learning deficits of cerebellar patients compared to matched controls using four visuomotor tasks: standard, gradual, overlearning and long intertrial interval. We measured slow learning using spontaneous recovery, the return to learned adaptation after brief wash out of fast adaptation. Spontaneous recovery increased in both groups only in overlearning. A model of adaptation suggested that in controls the increase reflects changes in slow system dynamics. In contrast, because cerebellar participants plateaued more slowly than controls, added trials in models of cerebellar participants increased the level of slow learning. Whereas, under the model, slow learning became more resilient in controls, there was no change in its dynamics for cerebellar participants. Our results and modeling suggest that while residual slow learning does exist in cerebellar patients and can be expressed through increased training trials, the primary cerebellar deficit cannot be improved by overlearning paradigms

Cerebellar patients do not benefit from cerebellar or M1 transcranial direct current stimulation during force-field reaching adaptation

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has been identified as a potential tool in the rehabilitation of cerebellar disease. We investigated whether tDCS of the cerebellum and primary motor cortex could alleviate motor impairments of subjects with cerebellar degeneration. The present study did not find stimulation effects of tDCS in young controls, aging controls, and individuals with cerebellar degeneration during reach adaptation. Our results require a re-evaluation of the clinical potential of tDCS in cerebellar patients. Several studies have identified transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) as a potential tool in the rehabilitation of cerebellar disease. Here, we tested whether tDCS could alleviate motor impairments of subjects with cerebellar degeneration. Three groups took part in this study: 20 individuals with cerebellar degeneration, 20 age-matched controls, and 30 young controls. A standard reaching task with force-field perturbations was used to compare motor adaptation among groups and to measure the effect of stimulation of the cerebellum or primary motor cortex (M1). Cerebellar subjects and age-matched controls were tested during each stimulation type (cerebellum, M1, and sham) with a break of 1 wk among each of the three sessions. Young controls were tested during one session under one of three stimulation types (anodal cerebellum, cathodal cerebellum, or sham). As expected, individuals with cerebellar degeneration had a reduced ability to adapt to motor perturbations. Importantly, cerebellar patients did not benefit from anodal stimulation of the cerebellum or M1. Furthermore, no stimulation effects could be detected in aging and young controls. The present null results cannot exclude more subtle tDCS effects in larger subject populations and between-subject designs. Moreover, it is still possible that tDCS affects motor adaptation in cerebellar subjects and control subjects under a different task or with alternative stimulation parameters. However, for tDCS to become a valuable tool in the neurorehabilitation of cerebellar disease, stimulation effects should be present in group sizes commonly used in this rare patient population and be more consistent and predictable across subjects and tasks