Randomized trial shows associations between oculomotor measures and subclinical impulsive-compulsive behaviors in Parkinson’s disease, indicating complex implications for treatment.
Introduction Subclinical impulsive–compulsive behaviors (s-ICBs) in Parkinson’s disease (PD) are common, clinically relevant, and frequently underdiagnosed. Objective behavioral measures reflecting vulnerability to impulsive–compulsive behavior are lacking. We investigated whether oculomotor measures of inhibitory control are associated with s-ICBs in dopaminergically treated PD patients without clinically manifest impulse control disorders. Methods Twenty-nine patients with PD (Hoehn and Yahr stages 1–2) and twenty age-matched healthy controls completed prosaccade and antisaccade eye-tracking tasks. Executive functioning, trait impulsivity, quality of life and s-ICBs were assessed. Group comparisons and association analyses were performed using nonparametric methods with false discovery rate correction. Exploratory mediation analysis examined relationships between levodopa equivalent daily dose (LEDD), s-ICBs severity, and express prosaccades. All assessments were performed in the ON-medication state. Results Compared with healthy controls, patients with PD showed a higher frequency of express prosaccades and prolonged antisaccade latencies. Within the PD group, express prosaccades were moderately to strongly associated with s-ICBs severity and LEDD and were also related to reduced quality of life. Mediation analysis revealed a significant statistical indirect effect of dopaminergic medication on express prosaccades through s-ICBs severity, indicating that behavioral symptoms statistically accounted for a substantial proportion of this association. Conclusions These findings demonstrate a close relationship between oculomotor control, subclinical impulsive–compulsive behaviors, and dopaminergic treatment in PD. The results highlight the complexity of non-motor manifestations in PD and underscore the need for longitudinal and mechanistic studies to clarify their clinical significance.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hapáková et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: