How lost coordination might better explain Parkinson’s disease
Do different relationships among stimuli matter?
Written by |
One of the strangest things about living with Parkinson’s disease is how inconsistent it can be.
A movement that feels nearly impossible one moment can sometimes become easier a few seconds later. A person may struggle to initiate a step but then walk fluidly once they get going. A line on the floor, a rhythmic sound, a change in attention, or some other external cue can occasionally alter what the body seems capable of doing.
I keep coming back to the same question: If the machinery is completely broken, why can changing the context sometimes change the performance?
I don’t think that question has a simple answer. Parkinson’s is enormously complex, and dopamine, the basal ganglia, motor circuits, sensory processing, cognition, and many other systems are involved. I’m certainly not proposing that all of Parkinson’s can be reduced to one explanation.
But I increasingly wonder whether coordination deserves more attention as part of the picture.
We usually think about disease by asking which individual part is malfunctioning. Which molecule? Which neuron? Which brain region? Which pathway?
Those are essential questions. But there is another kind of failure that can occur even when individual parts retain some ability to function: the parts may stop working together properly.
Think about an orchestra. Every musician might still be capable of playing. But if their timing, sequencing, volume, or responsiveness to one another begins to drift, the music falls apart.
Nothing necessarily has to disappear. The relationships can fail.
Exploring relationships
Over the past year, I’ve written about what I called “glitches in the matrix,” about sensory anchor points, and, more recently, about the body having something like its own navigation system. At the time, I thought of them as somewhat separate observations. Now I’m wondering whether they may be different views of the same underlying problem.
Our brains are constantly coordinating information from vision, hearing, touch, proprioception, balance, memory, prediction, and intention. Movement requires those streams of information to be integrated with remarkable precision.
It’s not merely about what happened, but also where, when, in what order, and relative to what else, and also what should happen next. Perhaps some of the difficulty in Parkinson’s disease occurs when those relationships become less reliable.
That idea would help explain why external cues are so interesting. A stripe on the floor or a rhythm doesn’t repair a damaged neuron. It may, however, provide an additional reference point around which the system can organize movement.
That doesn’t prove a coordination hypothesis. There are other explanations, and there almost certainly isn’t one mechanism behind every symptom. But it does suggest something testable.
Instead of asking only whether a stimulus helps, we could ask whether different relationships among stimuli matter. What happens if we change their timing? Their sequence? Their spatial relationship to the body? What if two sensory signals agree with each other, and then we deliberately make them disagree? What happens during stimulation, and perhaps more importantly, what happens after the cue disappears?
Those are questions I find increasingly compelling.
They are also part of what led me to start Brain Storm Studios. We are building tools that can precisely control sensory events so that questions like these can eventually be tested rather than simply debated. And that distinction matters to me.
I am not a neurologist, and I don’t have a new theory of Parkinson’s that I expect anyone to accept on faith. Living with this condition has instead made me an unusually motivated observer. I notice something. I build a possible explanation. Then the important question becomes: How could we prove it wrong?
Maybe coordination will turn out to be only one small piece of Parkinson’s. Maybe it will prove more important. Either result would teach us something.
For decades, we have become extraordinarily good at studying the individual parts of biological systems. Perhaps the next frontier also requires understanding the relationships among them.
Sometimes the most useful question may not simply be: What part is broken? It may also be: What relationships have been lost — and can they be relearned?
Note: Parkinson’s News Today is strictly a news and information website about the disease. It does not provide medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. This content is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the advice of your physician or another qualified health provider with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition. Never disregard professional medical advice or delay in seeking it because of something you have read on this website. The opinions expressed in this column are not those of Parkinson’s News Today or its parent company, Bionews, and are intended to spark discussion about issues pertaining to Parkinson’s disease.
Leave a comment
Fill in the required fields to post. Your email address will not be published.