Journal Mobile Options
Table of Contents
Vol. 40, No. 3, 1998
Issue release date: October 1998
Eur Neurol 1998;40:151–158
(DOI:10.1159/000007972)

Contribution of the Supplementary Motor Area and Anterior Cingulate Gyrus to Pathological Grasping Phenomena

Hashimoto R. · Tanaka Y.
To view the fulltext, log in and/or choose pay-per-view option

Individual Users: Register with Karger Login Information

Please create your User ID & Password





Contact Information











I have read the Karger Terms and Conditions and agree.

To view the fulltext, please log in

To view the pdf, please log in

Abstract

To investigate the relationship between the site of brain damage and characteristics of the pathological grasping phenomena, we examined different varieties of the reaction in a consecutive series of 28 patients with unilateral hemispheric damage due to stroke. Patients with a lesion relatively confined to the supplementary motor area (n = 4) constantly exhibited a grasp reflex, mainly in the hand contralateral to the lesion, but they never showed a groping reaction. By contrast, patients with damage primarily involving the anterior cingulate gyrus (n = 3) developed the groping reaction in the hand contralateral to the lesion, but they had only a very mild grasp reflex in that hand. Patients with damage involving both the supplementary motor area and the anterior cingulate gyrus (n = 12) showed the grasp reflex and groping reaction mainly in the hand contralateral to the lesion. Patients with damage to the medial parietal lobe (n = 2), those with damage to the lateral convexity of the hemisphere (n = 6), and a patient with damage confined to the corpus callosum did not exhibit such grasping phenomena. From these observations, we conclude that the grasp reflex is closely related to a lesion of the supplementary motor area, whereas the groping reaction is bound to a lesion of the anterior cingulate gyrus.



Copyright / Drug Dosage

Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher or, in the case of photocopying, direct payment of a specified fee to the Copyright Clearance Center.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in goverment regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.

References

  1. Janischewsky A: Le réflexe de préhension dans les affections organiques de l’encéphale. Rev Neurol (Paris) 1914;27:678–681.
  2. Schuster P: Zwangsgreifen und Nachgreifen: zwei posthemiplegische Bewegungsstörungen. Z Ges Neurol Psychiatr 1923;83:586–609.
  3. Schuster P, Pinéas H: Weitere Beobachtungen über Zwangsgreifen und Nachgreifen und deren Beziehungen zu ähnlichen Bewegungsstörungen. Dt Z Nervenheilkd 1926;91:16–56.
  4. Adie WJ, Critchley M: Forced grasping and groping. Brain 1927;50:142–170.
  5. Walshe FMR, Hunt JH: Further observations upon grasping movements and reflex tonic grasping. Brain 1936;59:315–322.
  6. Bieber I: Grasping: ‘Forced’ and ‘non-forced’. J Nerv Ment Dis 1940;91:417–422.
  7. Seyffarth H, Denny-Brown D: The grasp reflex and the instinctive grasp reaction. Brain 1948;71:109–183.
  8. De Renzi E, Barbieri C: The incidence of the grasp reflex following hemispheric lesion and its relation to frontal damage. Brain 1992;115:293–313.

    External Resources

  9. Oldfield RC: The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh Inventory. Neuropsychologia 1971;9:97–113.
  10. Mori E, Yamadori A: Unilateral hemispheric injury and ipsilateral instinctive grasp reaction. Arch Neurol 1985;42:486–488.
  11. Bogen JE: The callosal syndromes; in Heilman KM, Valenstein E (eds): Clinical Neuropsychology, ed 3. New York, Oxford University Press, 1993, pp 337–407.
  12. Damasio H, Damasio AR: Lesion Analysis in Neuropsychology. New York, Oxford University Press, 1989.
  13. Vilensky JA, Van Hosen GW: Corticopontine projections from the cingulate cortex in rhesus monkey. Brain Res 1981;205:391–395.
  14. Hutchins KD, Martino AM, Strick PL: Corticospinal projections from the medial wall of the hemisphere. Exp Brain Res 1988;71:667–672.
  15. Shima K, Aya K, Mushiake H, Inase M, Aizawa H, Tanji J: Two movement-related foci in the primate cingulate cortex in signal-triggered and self-paced forelimb movements. J Neurophysiol 1991;65:188–202.
  16. Dum RP, Strick PL: The origin of corticospinal projections from the premotor areas in the frontal lobe. J Neurosci 1991;11:667–689.

    External Resources

  17. Dum RP, Strick PL: Medial wall motor areas and skeletomotor control. Curr Opin Neurobiol 1992;2:836–839.

    External Resources

  18. Jürgens U: The afferent and efferent connections of the supplementary motor area. Brain Res 1984;300:63–81.
  19. Carpenter MB, Sutin J: The cerebral cortex; in Carpenter MB, Sutin J (eds): Human Neuroanatomy; ed 2. Baltimore, Williams & Wilkins, 1983, pp 643–705.
  20. Brinkman C, Porter R: Supplementary motor area in the monkey: Activity of neurons during performance of a learned motor task. J Neurophysiol 1979;42:681–709.

    External Resources

  21. Wiesendanger M, Rüegg DG, Lucier GE: Why transcortical reflexes? Can J Neurol Sci 1975;2:295–301.

    External Resources

  22. Kunzle H: An autoradiographic analysis of the efferent connections from premotor and adjacent prefrontal regions (areas 6 and 9) in Macaca fascicularis. Brain Behav Evol 1978;15:185–234.
  23. Pandya DN, Van Hosen GW, Mesulam M-M: Efferent connections of the cingulate gyrus in the rhesus monkey. Exp Brain Res 1981;42:319–330.

    External Resources

  24. Vogt BA, Pandya DN: Cingulate cortex of the rhesus monkey: II. Cortical afferents. J Comp Neurol 1987;262:271–289.
  25. Roland PE, Larsen B: Focal increase of cerebral blood flow during stereognostic testing in man. Arch Neurol 1976;33:551–558.

    External Resources

  26. Jackson SR, Husain M: Visuomotor functions of the lateral pre-motor cortex. Curr Opin Neurobiol 1996;6:788–795.

    External Resources

  27. Picard N, Strick PL: Activation on the medial wall during remembered sequences of reaching movements in monkeys. J Neurophysiol 1997;77:2197–2201.

    External Resources

  28. Savaki HE, Kennedy C, Sokoloff L, Miskin M: Visually guided reaching with the forelimb contralateral to a ‘blind’ hemisphere: A metabolic mapping study in monkeys. J Neurosci 1993;13:2772–2789.
  29. Petit L, Orssaud C, Tzourio N, Salamon G, Mazoyer B, Berthoz A: PET study of voluntary saccadic eye movements in humans: basal ganglia-thalamocortical system and cingulate cortex involvement. J Neurophysiol 1993;69:1009–1017.


Pay-per-View Options
Direct payment This item at the regular price: USD 38.00
Payment from account With a Karger Pay-per-View account (down payment USD 150) you profit from a special rate for this and other single items.
This item at the discounted price: USD 26.50