Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2021 Mar 24;16(3):e0249144. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0249144

Planning deficits in Huntington’s disease: A brain structural correlation by voxel-based morphometry

Jesus Calderon-Villalon 1, Gabriel Ramirez-Garcia 2, Juan Fernandez-Ruiz 2,3, Fernanda Sangri-Gil 1, Aurelio Campos-Romo 4, Victor Galvez 1,4,*
Editor: Andre Aleman5
PMCID: PMC7990304  PMID: 33760890

Abstract

Introduction

Early Huntington’s disease (HD) patients begin to show planning deficits even before motor alterations start to manifest. Generally, planning ability is associated with the functioning of anterior brain areas such as the medial prefrontal cortex. However, early HD neuropathology involves significant atrophy in the occipital and parietal cortex, suggesting that more posterior regions could also be involved in these planning deficits.

Objective

To identify brain regions associated with planning deficits in HD patients at an early clinical stage.

Materials and methods

Twenty-two HD-subjects genetically confirmed with incipient clinical manifestation and twenty healthy subjects were recruited. All participants underwent MRI T1 image acquisition as well as testing in the Stockings of Cambridge (SOC) task to measure planning ability. First, group comparison of SOC measures were performed. Then, correlation voxel-based morphometry analyses were done between gray matter degeneration and SOC performance in the HD group.

Results

Accuracy and efficiency planning scores correlated with gray matter density in right lingual gyrus, middle temporal gyrus, anterior cingulate gyrus, and paracingulate gyrus.

Conclusions

Our results suggest that planning deficits exhibited by early HD-subjects are related to occipital and temporal cortical degeneration in addition to the frontal areas deterioration.

Introduction

Huntington’s Disease (HD) subjects is a neurodegenerative disease characterized by motor, behavioral, and cognitive deficits observed usually during middle adulthood (35–44 years old). These changes are associated with an abnormal expansion of the CAG trinucleotide repeat sequence in the gene 4p 1.3 [1]. Early changes that may precede clinical manifestation include executive function deficits on flexibility and planning that reduce their goal-directed behaviors in daily life [2]. Planning ability is defined as the identification and organization of the elements needed to carry out an intention or to achieve a goal [3]. This ability does not depend on a single brain region but has been related to a set of regions associated with the fronto-cingulo-limbic-parietal network [4].

The Tower of London (TOL) task has been used as a reliable measure of planning ability [510]. Functional imaging analyses have found that the basal ganglia, the premotor cortex, and the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex are the main regions activated during its execution [57]. However, previous studies with patients have revealed that subjects with posterior cortical damage also show impairments in its global execution [8, 9]. Additionally, it has been shown that the functional activity of the dorsal ("where") and ventral ("what") visual pathways correlate with the execution but no with the complexity of the task, suggesting that these posterior areas may have a sensory involvement during the visuospatial planning process, in contrast to the more anterior structures [9, 10].

Early HD neurodegeneration pattern also involve a decrease of gray matter (GM) in occipital, parietal, and motor cortices, in addition to the prefrontal cortex atrophy [11], suggesting that regions associated with planning abilities are broadly affected in this illness. This is supported by reports describing planning alterations in manifest HD-subjects, as a consequence of functional decoupling of the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) and the left premotor area [2, 12].

To delve into the neural bases of the planning deficits in HD, here we investigated the possible relation between the neurodegeneration of specific brain areas and planning deficits observed in early HD-patients. For this purpose, GM from whole-brain structural T1 magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was correlated with the performance on the Stockings of Cambridge (SOC) planning task. We hypothesized that planning deficits exhibited by early HD-subjects are related to the cortical degeneration in both posterior and frontal brain regions.

Materials and methods

Participants

Twenty-two HD gene-mutation carriers at the early clinical stage and twenty healthy subjects matched for age, sex, and level of education participated in this study (Table 1). The HD-subjects were recruited at the Instituto Nacional de Neurología y Neurocirugía (INNN). After the positive molecular diagnosis, the patients were invited to participate in the study. Subsequently, the cognitive assessment was performed at the INNN and the brain imaging acquisition was performed at the Instituto Nacional de Psiquiatría. The inclusion criteria for the HD-subjects were a positive molecular genetic diagnosis for HD and a Total Functional Capacity score (TFC) higher than 7 points. The exclusion criteria was the presence of neuropathological findings in the MRI non-HD related. The control group subjects self-reported no history of neurological or psychiatric disorders. They were recruited at the same period of evaluation as the HD-subject group by an open invitation to the general public. All the procedures were performed according to the Declaration of Helsinki [13], approved by the health and ethics committees of the INNN and the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM) (N° DIC/419/14 and N° 41/14). All participants signed a written informed consent before their inclusion in this study.

Table 1. Clinic and demographic groups data.

Control group HD-subjects
Men:Women 7:13 9:13
Age (years) 45.4 ± 12.2 (26.5–67.5) 46.1± 12.1 (27.6–67.5)
Education (years) 16.1 ± 2.8 (10–21) 14.13 ± 3.2 (9–19)
Age onset (years) - 45.3 ± 10. 6 (26.8–62. 6)
Symptoms duration (months) - 48.5 ± 51.0 (0–186.2)
CAG-repeat length - 45.3 ± 3.8 (40–54)
Disease burden* - 389.9 ± 100.5 (154.8–534)
TFC - 11.9 ± 1.8 (8–13)
UHDRS motor scale - ± 13.6 (0–40)

*Disease burden was calculated using the following formula: Age (years) * (CAG-repeat length– 35.5) [22]. ± standard deviation.

Clinical and neuropsychological testing

MoCA [14] was used to evaluate the global cognitive status for all subjects. The TFC [15] and the motor subscales from Unified Huntington’s Disease Rating Scale (UHDRS) [16] were used to measure the clinical status of the HD group. Particularly, the symptomatic HD patients were defined by the scores obtained in the TFC scale, where a lower score reflects a reduced functional capacity. The TFC range is from 0 to 13 points, consequently, in our study we defined as early symptomatic HD to the subjects with scores higher than 7, considering the scale criteria [15].

Planning performance task with SOC

Planning performance in all participants was evaluated using the SOC test, a digital task from the Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery (CANTAB) software version Eclipse®. It requires spatial abilities and strategic planning and is aimed to give a measure of frontal lobe function [17, 18]. Participants performed the task using a computer tablet; the touch screen showed two panels. The upper panel showed the reference pattern that the subject had to match in the lower panel. The objective was to move three colored balls, placed in different positions within three stockings to the reference position showed in the upper panel. The participants could only move the balls one at a time by selecting the required ball, then selecting the position to which it should be moved. The balls were arranged in different patterns in each problem, and participants were instructed to make as few moves as possible to solve it. The level of difficulty increased as the number of minimum moves needed to complete the task was risen. Twelve problems were evaluated. The first six problems could be solved in a minimum of two movements (and four at the most). The last six problems were considered “difficult” because the number of minimum moves needed to solve them was five (and twelve at the most). Two types of measurements were collected: the accuracy (the sum of the number of solved problems in the minimum of movements allowed, being 12 for all problems and 6 for the “difficult” problems), and efficiency (the sum of the number of movements made in the respective set of problems: all and “difficult” problems) [19]. It should be noted that in contrast to accuracy where a higher score is better, in efficiency a higher count indicates worse performance.

Image acquisition

All images were acquired using a 3T MRI scanner (Philips Medical Systems, Eindhoven, The Netherlands). The high-resolution anatomical acquisition consisted of a T1-3D Fast Field-Echo sequence with the following parameters: TR/TE: 8/3.7 ms; FOV: 256 × 256 mm2; Flip angle = 8°; acquisition and reconstruction matrix: 256 × 256; and isometric resolution: 1 × 1 × 1 mm3.

Voxel-based morphometry (VBM)

GM measurement was performed using VBM as implemented in FSL software (http://www.fmrib.ox.ac.uk/fsl) following the standard procedure reported previously [20]. Then, to test if there was an association between GM density and SOC measures in HD-subjects, a one-sample t-test was performed in a voxel-wise analysis through the GLM, including GM and accuracy and efficiency scores in all problems (12 evaluated problems) and "difficult" problems (last 6 evaluated problems). The significance level was set at p < .01, and the Family Wise Error correction for multiple comparisons was done using the random permutation method (n = 10,000) using Threshold-Free Cluster Enhancement (TFCE), suggested for general linear model inference analysis [21]. For all the analyses, the disease burden score (calculated using the formula: age (years) × [CAG repeat length − 35.5]) [22] was included as a nuisance variable. Only clusters with a minimum cluster size of 30 voxels were reported. Coordinates were reported in the MNI standard-space and anatomical labels were obtained from the Talairach Daemon labels, MNI cerebellum, and Harvard-Oxford Cortical Structural and Subcortical Structural Atlases.

Statistical analysis

SOC performance comparison between groups was conducted using the nonparametric Mann-Whitney U-test. Accuracy and efficiency measures were calculated for the 12 problems together, and for the 6 problems considered as “difficult”. SOC scores were correlated with the patients’ GM density. Spearman’s rho correlation analysis was performed using the average GM density from each VBM significant cluster. Finally, only significant correlations corrected by the Bonferroni method were selected (.01/number of significant clusters obtained by VBM), setting a significance level for all problems at p < .0016 (.01/6), and for “difficult” problems at p < .0025 (.01/4). All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS software (SPSS version 23, Chicago, Illinois, USA).

Results

Clinical testing

The TFC scale mean (x¯) and (±) standard deviation score from HD-subjects was x¯ = 11.9 ± 1.8, detecting eighteen patients (82%) in Stage I (scores from 11 to 13) and four patients (18%) in Stage II (scores from 7 to 10). The mean UHDRS score was x¯ = 17.1 ± 13.6 out of a maximum of 124. Five patients (22.7%) showed abnormal movements, with the highest score of 40 points in the most affected patient. Seventeen patients (77.3%) scored less than 17 points, and two patients (9.5%) scored 0 points. The above data confirmed their early clinical status according to the functional and motor decline [15, 23]. MoCA global score comparison showed significant group differences between the control (x¯ = 27.5 ± 2.2) and HD (x¯ = 24.6 ± 2.9) groups (U = 109.500, p = 0.002).

SOC scores analyses also showed significant accuracy and efficiency differences between groups (Fig 1). The control group (x¯ = 8.8 ± 1.7) showed better accuracy than the HD group while solving all the problems (x¯ = 6.9 ± 2.4) (U = 117.5, p = .009). Likewise, the control group (x¯ = 3.4 ± 1.4) showed better accuracy than the HD group while solving the “difficult” problems (x¯ = 2.5 ± 1.4) (U = 139, p = .038). Regarding the efficiency to solve all problems, the control group showed better performance (x¯ = 115.5 ± 17.7) than the HD group (x¯ = 145.1 ± 41.2) (U = 101.5, p = .003). Similarly, the control group (x¯ = 75.6 ± 15) showed better efficiency solving the “difficult” problems than the HD group (x¯ = 93.6 ± 24.2) (U = 116.5, p = .009).

Fig 1. Differences in SOC scores analyses between groups.

Fig 1

A) Accuracy to solve all problems: Number of problems solved in the minimum number of movements. B) Accuracy to solve "difficult" problems: Number of problems solved in the minimum number of movements. C) Efficiency to solve all problems: Sum of movements made to solve each of all problems. D) Efficiency to solve "difficult" problems: Sum of movements made to solve each “difficult” problem. *p < .05.

Relationship of SOC scores and GM density in early manifest HD-subjects

VBM analyses showed a positive correlation between the accuracy to solve all problems with volume preservation in the right middle temporal gyrus (RMTG) (posterior division), right lingual gyrus (RLG), right paracingulate gyrus (RPCG), left putamen, left central opercular cortex and left insular cortex. A similar analysis found a negative correlation between the efficiency to solve “difficult” problems with volume preservation in the right cerebellum posterior lobe, left cerebellar nodule, RMTG (anterior division), and right anterior cingulate gyrus (RACG) (Fig 2). No significant correlations were found in the efficiency to solve all problems nor the accuracy to solve “difficult” problems.

Fig 2. VBM analysis association between GM and SOC scores.

Fig 2

Significant association between GM with accuracy to solve all problems (green scatterplot); and efficiency to solve “difficult” problems (blue scatterplot). Color maps indicate t-value level corrected by TFCE (p < .01). Scatter plots show the Spearman’s rho correlation between the average GM density from VBM significative clusters with the corresponding SOC score. Statistical parametric maps are shown onto the three-dimensionally rendered MNI template brain. RACG: right anterior cingulate gyrus; RMTG: right middle temporal gyrus; RLG: right lingual gyrus; RPCG: Right paracingulate gyrus.

Discussion

Here we tested if planning deficits in HD-subjects could be related to cortical degeneration in frontal and posterior brain regions. Our analyses of the VBM suggest that besides the contribution of the frontal lobe deterioration to these deficits, posterior degeneration also correlates with the HD group’s impaired performance in the planning task. Following is a discussion of these results.

Planning performance in early HD-subjects

Early HD-subjects exhibited planning deficits associated with accuracy and efficiency performance. HD patients made significantly more movements to solve the SOC problems, suggesting impaired planning efficiency compared with the control group. Additionally, HD-subjects were less accurate as suggested by the smaller number of solved problems using the fewest possible moves. These SOC results confirm what has been reported in other studies employing similar tasks to explore planning skills in HD-patients [2, 12, 24].

SOC performance association with early HD-subjects brain

Our results suggest that, in addition to frontal areas such as the cingulate gyrus, HD planning deficits are also associated with the degeneration in occipital and temporal cortices. Volume reductions in three cortical areas were correlated positively with SOC scores in the HD group: RMTG, RLG, and the cingulate gyrus (RACG and RPCG). It is important to note that VBM results showed a consistent GM density negative correlation between RMTG and cingulate gyrus with the efficiency to solve “difficult” problems, and with the accuracy to solve all SOC problems.

The possible explanation for the strong association between the accuracy to solve all problems and RMTG degeneration could be related to its role in visual processing, including visuospatial information processing [25, 26]. The hypothesis that planning deficits may involve visuospatial deterioration is further supported by the correlation between accuracy deficits with the degeneration of posterior brain areas like RLG. This is supported by previous reports showing significant activity changes in this area in Parkinson’s disease patients in comparison to control subjects while performing the TOL task [27]. This is consistent with the evidence that visual perceptual deficits could give rise to changes in cognitive performance, particularly when planning ability is involved [28].

Although planning ability in HD-subjects has been associated with mPFC functional connectivity [12], our GM structural analysis showed relative preservation of this area in our patient cohort. In contrast, our analysis found a significant correlation between the RACG with low efficiency planning, and RPCG with low accuracy planning; both limbic brain regions. This may be explained by considering a previous functional MRI study in healthy subjects during TOL performance [29]. That study describes the prefrontal-cingulate connectivity; however, it also shows more activity in the anterior cingulate cortex to solve low difficult problems but switching to more activity in prefrontal regions to solve the more difficult problems, suggesting that both areas are differentially activated depending on the degree of cognitive demand [29]. The above could help explain the differences in brain regions that correlated with planning deficits depending on the problem complexity in HD-subjects.

In addition, RACG is reported as part of the executive attention network related to error detection (self-monitoring) [30] and arousal increase during complex problems performance [9]. In this regard, the low efficiency of patients may also be part of an attentional domain deficit that matches with the idea that planning ability is related to the fronto-cingulo-limbic-parietal network where different brain regions converge to coordinate executive functions [4].

Finally, the role of the subcortical structures like the putamen in planning deficits in HD-subjects should also be taken into account. The striatum is part of a wide fronto-executive network involved in planning processing, which network includes the medial prefrontal areas and the dorsolateral prefrontal areas [2, 12]. Usually, cognitive impairments exhibited in HD patients are associated to caudate nucleus decrease due to the spiny neurons atrophy [31]. This decrease seems to affect particularly the caudate nucleus during the clinical debut, specially compromising the prefrontal cortico-striatal loop [2, 32, 33]. However, our study found that putamen deterioration in HD patients also contributes to the accuracy decrease to solve planning problems. This result suggests that, in addition to the caudate nucleus, the putamen degeneration could also compromise cognitive functions during the early clinical stage. This decrease seems to affect particularly the caudate nucleus during the clinical debut, specially compromising the prefrontal cortico-striatal loop [2, 32, 33]. However, our study found that putamen deterioration in HD patients also contributes to the accuracy decrease to solve planning problems. This result suggests that, in addition to the caudate nucleus, the putamen degeneration could also compromise cognitive functions during the early clinical stage.

Some limitations in our study that should be considered for future research: 1) Because we had access to a relatively small number of patients, given the rarity of this disease, we recommend including the assessment of planning deficits in HD studies with a larger sample size. This could confirm the consistency of the brain gray matter areas associated with SOC deficits in HD reported in this study. 2) The cohort consisted of HD patients at an early symptomatic stage; it remains to be determined if prodromal patients start showing planning deficits before the clinical manifestation of the disease. 3) In this study we used two tests to analyze the cognitive impairment in general and the planning deficits in particular. It is recommended that for future assessments of the global cognitive status, and the planning ability, more neuropsychological batteries should be used, allowing a more comprehensive evaluation in these patients. 4) It would be interesting to explore if the correlation between the planning performance deficits and the loss of gray matter density could also be found with white matter deterioration, or changes in functional connectivity in HD-subjects. 5) Finally, even though we identified temporo-occipital degeneration associated with planning performance, we must be cautious with the interpretation of this result. The reported correlations passed the multiple comparison corrections, and each correlation showed different coefficients of determination. However, they could still have a collinearity problem, which is a main challenge to overcome in this type of study.

Acknowledgments

We thank the HD patients and healthy controls who participated in this study.

Data Availability

We uploaded the tables with the planning scores and their correlations with gray matter in figshare with the DOI: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.13672873.v3. However, the individual patients' data is confidential, and we are prevented from publicly sharing these data. For more information, contact: Víctor Gálvez, PhD Cognitive Neuroscience Laboratory, Psychology, Health Sciences School, Universidad Panamericana, CDMX city, México. Telephone: +52 1 55 54 82 16 00 ext. 6429 e-mail: vgalvez@up.edu.mx.

Funding Statement

This study was supported in part by CONACYT grant No. 220871 and No. A1-S-10669, PAPIIT-UNAM grant No. IN220019 to JFR, and CONACYT fellowship No. 574022/403010 to GRG. V. Gálvez received a grant "Fondo semilla 2019" from FCS-Universidad Panamericana.

References

  • 1.Bates GP, Dorsey R, Gusella JF, Hayden MR, Kay C, Leavitt BR, et al. Huntington disease. Nature Reviews Disease Primers. 2015; 1: 15005. 10.1038/nrdp.2015.5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Mörkl S, Müller NJ, Blesl C, Wilkinson L, Tmava A, Wurn W, et al. Problem solving, impulse control and planning in early- and late-stage Huntington’s disease. European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience. 2016; 266(7): 663–671. 10.1007/s00406-016-0707-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Lezak MD, Howieson DB, Bigler ED, Tranel D. Neuropsychological assessment. New York: Oxford University Press; 2012. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Bartley JE, Boeving ER, Riedel MC, Bottenhorn KL, Salo T, Eickhoff SB, et al. Meta-analytic evidence for a core problem solving network across multiple representational domains. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews. 2018; 92: 318–337. 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2018.06.009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Schall U, Johnston P, Lagopoulos J, Jüptner M, Jentzen W, Thienel R, et al. Functional brain maps of Tower of London performance: a positron emission tomography and functional magnetic resonance imaging study. Neuroimage. 2003; 20(2): 1154–1161. 10.1016/S1053-8119(03)00338-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Newman SD, Greco JA, Lee D. An fMRI study of the Tower of London: a look at problem structure differences. Brain research. 2009; 1286: 123–132. 10.1016/j.brainres.2009.06.031 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Vriend C, Wagenmakers MJ, Van den Heuvel OA, Van der Werf YD. Resting-state network topology and planning ability in healthy adults. Brain Structure and Function. 2020; 225(1): 365–374. 10.1007/s00429-019-02004-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Shallice T. Specific impairments of planning. Philosophical Transactions of The Royal Society. 1982; 298: 199–209. 10.1098/rstb.1982.0082 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Dagher A, Owen AM, Boecker H, Brooks DJ. Mapping the network for planning: a correlational PET activation study with the Tower of London task. Brain. 1999; 122: 1973–1987. 10.1093/brain/122.10.1973 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Coppen EM, van der Grond J, Hart EP, Lakke EAJF, Roos RAC. The visual cortex and visual cognition in Huntington’s disease: an overview of current literature. Behavioral Brain Research. 2018; 351: 63–74. 10.1016/j.bbr.2018.05.019 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Ramirez-Garcia G, Galvez V, Diaz R, Bayliss L, Fernandez-Ruiz J, Campos-Romo A. Longitudinal atrophy characterization of cortical and subcortical gray matter in Huntington’s disease patients. European Journal of Neuroscience. 2019; 51: 1827–1843. 10.1111/ejn.14617 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Unschuld PG, Liu X, Shanahan M, Margolis RL, Bassett SS, Brandt J, et al. Prefrontal executive function associated coupling relates to Huntington’s disease stage. Cortex. 2013; 49(10): 2661–2673. 10.1016/j.cortex.2013.05.015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Declaration H. Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. 2013. 10.1001/jama.2013.281053 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Aguilar-Navarro SG, Mimenza-Alvarado AJ, Palacios-García AA, Samudio Cruz A, Gutiérrez-Gutiérrez LA, Ávila-Funes JA. Validez y confiabilidad del MoCA (Montreal Assessment Test) para el tamizaje del deterioro cognoscitivo en México. Asociación Colombiana de Psiquiatría. 2017; 47(4): 237–243. 10.1016/j.rcp.2017.05.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Shoulson I, Fahn S. Huntington’s disease: clinical care and evaluation. Neurology. 1979; 19: 1–3. 10.1212/wnl.29.1.1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Huntington Study Group. Unified Huntington’s disease rating scale: reliability and consistency. Movement disorders. 1996; 11(2). 10.1002/mds.870110204 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Lawrence AD, Hodges JR, Rosser AE, Kershaw A, French-Constant C, Rubinsztein DC, et al. Evidence for specific cognitive deficits in preclinical Huntington’s disease. Brain: a journal of neurology. 1998; 121(7): 1329–1341. 10.1093/brain/121.7.1329 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Torgersen J, Flaatten H, Engelsen BA, Gramstad A. Clinical validation of Cambridge neuropsychological test automated battery in a Norwegian epilepsy population. Journal of Behavioral and Brain Science. 2012; 2(1): 108–116. 10.4236/jbbs.2012.21013 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Berg WK & Byrd D. The Tower of London Spatial Problem-Solving Task: Enhancing Clinical and Research Implementation. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology. 2002; 24(5): 586–604. 10.1076/jcen.24.5.586.1006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Smith SM, Jenkinson M, Woolrich MW, Beckmann CF, Behrens TEJ, Johansen-Berg H, et al. Advances in functional and structural MR image analysis and implementation of FSL. Neuroimage. 2004; 23: 208–219. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.07.051 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Winkler AM, Ridgway GR, Webster MA, Smith SM, Nichols TE. Permutation inference for the general linear model. Neuroimage. 2014; 92: 381–397. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.01.060 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Penney JB Jr, Vonsattel JP, Macdonald ME, Gusella JF, Myers RH. CAG repeat number governs the development rate of pathology in Huntington’s disease. Annals of Neurology: Official Journal of the American Neurological Association and the Child Neurology Society. 1997; 41(5): 689–692. 10.1002/ana.410410521 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Schobel SA, Palermo G, Auinger P, Long JD, Ma S, Khwaja OS, et al. Motor, cognitive, and functional declines contribute to a single progressive factor in early HD. Neurology. 2017; 89(24): 2495–2502. 10.1212/WNL.0000000000004743 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Watkins LHA, Rogers RD, Lawrence AD, Sahakian BJ, Rosser AE, Robbins TW. Impaired planning but intact decision making in early Huntington’s disease: implications for specific fronto-striatal pathology. Neuropsychologia. 2000; 38(8): 1112–1125. 10.1016/s0028-3932(00)00028-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Dravida S, Saxe R, Bedny M. People can understand descriptions of motion without activating visual motion brain regions. Frontiers in psychology. 2013; 4(1): 1–14. 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00537 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Deng Y, Shi L, Lei Y, Liang P, Li K, Chu, et al. Mapping the “What” and “Where” Visual Cortices and Their Atrophy in Alzheimer’s Disease: Combined Activation Likelihood Estimation with Voxel-Based Morphometry. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 2016; 10: 1–16. 10.3389/fnhum.2016.00001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Dagher A, Owen AM, Boecker H, Brooks DJ. The role of the striatum and hippocampus in planning: a PET activation study in Parkinson’s disease. Brain. 2001; 124(5): 1020–1032. 10.1093/brain/124.5.1020 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Owen AM, Doyon J, Petrides M, Evans AC. Planning and spatial working memory: a positron emission tomography study in humans. European Journal of Neurosciences. 1996; 8(2): 353–364. 10.1111/j.1460-9568.1996.tb01219.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Cazalis F, Valabrègue R, Pélégrini-Issac M, Asloun S, Robbins TW, Granon S. Individual differences in prefrontal cortical activation on the Tower of London planning task: implication for effortful processing. European Journal of Neuroscience. 2003; 17(10): 2219–2225. 10.1046/j.1460-9568.2003.02633.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Posner MI, Petersen SE. The attention system of human brain: 20 years after. Annual Review of Neuroscience. 2012; 21(35): 73–89. 10.1146/annurev-neuro-062111-150525 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Cepeda C, Wu N, Andre V, Cummings D, Levine M. The corticostriatal pathway in Huntington’s disease. 2007; 81(5–6), 253–271. 10.1016/j.pneurobio.2006.11.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Johnson EB, Ziegler G, Penny W, Rees G, Tabrizi SJ, Scahill RI, et al. Dynamics of cortical degeneration over a decade in Huntington’s disease. Biological Psychiatry. 2020. 10.1016/j.biopsych.2020.11.009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Poudel GR, Stout JC, Domínguez D JF, Churchyard A, Chua P, Egan GF, et al. Longitudinal change in white matter microstructure in Huntington’s disease: The IMAGE-HD study. Neurobiology of Disease. 2015; 74, 406–412. 10.1016/j.nbd.2014.12.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Andre Aleman

13 Jan 2021

PONE-D-20-37811

Planning deficits in Huntington's disease: a brain structural correlation by voxel-based morphometry

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Gálvez Zúñiga,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

One expert Reviewer and myself reviewed the manuscript. You will find some points raised by me, and the others in the review from Reviewer 1. Please revise your manuscript along these lines and it should be acceptable for publication.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 19 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Andre Aleman, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please ensure you have discussed any potential limitations of your study in the Discussion, including study design, sample size and/or potential confounders.

3. In your Methods section, please provide additional information about the participant recruitment method and the demographic details of your participants.

Please ensure you have provided sufficient details to replicate the analyses such as:

a) the recruitment date range (month and year),

b) a description of any inclusion/exclusion criteria that were applied to participant recruitment,

c) a description of how participants were recruited, and

d) descriptions of where participants were recruited and where the research took place.

4. Please provide a sample size and power calculation in the Methods, or discuss the reasons for not performing one before study initiation.

5. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

Additional Editor Comments:

This is an interesting paper describing the results of an investigation into structural brain correlates of planning ability in patients with Huntington's Disease. The study was well-conducted and the manuscript is well written.

Some points deserve attention:

1. The neuropsychological evaluation was rather limited in scope (only MoCA and SOC). This should be acknowledged as a limitation in the Discussion.

2. The MoCA showed differences between groups in general cognitive ability. The authors could consider taking this into account as a covariate (maybe MoCA without executive component), so as to have a more "pure" estimate of planning ability as measured with SOC in association with the VBM measure.

3. The relevance of striatum is briefly mentioned in the Discussion, but as frontostriatal involvement has been regarded to be crucial for planning performance, the authors should devote a few more sentences to the question how this relates to their results.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This paper addresses an interesting issue in HD research. Although traditionally thought of as a disease primarily associated with striato-frontal degeneration, since the TRACK-HD study (Tabrizi, 2009) we know that degeneration of posterior regions is part of early HD disease evolution. And so the question arises which cognitive and behavioural defect are associated with or attributable to posterior degeneration. In this paper the authors report on such an association.

They used one neuropsychological test, SOC, and related this to grey matter density decrease in a whole brain VBM approach. Significant differences in SOC test performance between early HD subjects and controls were found in terms of accuracy and efficiency for both “all problems” and “difficult problems”. They report (lines 199-205) a significant association between the ‘accuracy to solve all problems with volume preservation in the right middle temporal gyrus (RMTG, posterior division), right lingual gyrus (RLG), right paracingulate gyrus (RPCG), left putamen, left central opercular cortex and left insular cortex. A similar analysis found a negative correlation between the efficiency to solve “difficult” problems with volume preservation in the right cerebellum posterior lobe, left cerebellar nodule, RMTG (anterior division), and right anterior cingulate gyrus (RACG).’

(Confusingly, the next sentence (lines 205-207) states: ‘No significant associations were found on the accuracy to solve all problems neither on the efficiency to solve “difficult” problems.’ What do they mean? What do I miss or misunderstand?)

The association between SOC test performance and loss of gray matter density appears to vindicate a role in early HD for the degeneration of posterior parts in what have traditionally been considered ‘frontal executive functions’. But the problem that should be recognized in this type of analysis is the widespread degeneration that may take place and the resulting collinearity of data with resulting overinterpretation of correlations. It would be nice if this issue would be addressed in the Discussion.

Yet, I consider this an interesting paper, worth sharing with the rest of the scientific community.

Some minor issues:

In the materials and Methods section, first line, 22 HD mutation carriers and 20 healthy controls are mentioned. But Table 1 of Results, a control group of 22 (men:women = 9:13) is mentioned.

How were symptomatic patients defined and selected? As having specific motor signs (the international definition) or of having early cognitive, behavioural or functional problems prior to the onset of motor signs? I assume the latter. The ‘Clinical testing’ section mentions only 5 patients with ‘abnormal movements’ and 2 patients with UHDRS motor score of 0. The authors should explain their patient selection in more detail.

In the Discussion the authors write: ‘our analysis found a significant correlation between the RACG with low efficiency planning, and RPCG with low accuracy planning; both frontal brain regions.’ (Lines 258 and 259) I guess they mean: both limbic regions?

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Mar 24;16(3):e0249144. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0249144.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


17 Feb 2021

Following is a point by point response to the concerns raised by the academic editor and the expert reviewer:

1. “Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming.” Answer:

We have double-checked the PLOS ONE’s style requirements to ensure that this manuscript meets the publication's requirements.

2. “Please ensure you have discussed any potential limitations of your study in the Discussion, including study design, sample size and/or potential confounders.” Answer:

Our research presents potential limitations which we have now included in the Discussion section as follow (lines 281 – 299):

Some limitations in our study that should be considered for future research:

1) Because we had access to a relatively small number of patients, given the rarity of this disease, we recommend including the assessment of planning deficits in HD studies with a larger sample size. This could confirm the consistency of the brain gray matter areas associated with SOC deficits in HD reported in this study.

2) The cohort consisted of HD patients at an early symptomatic stage; it remains to be determined if prodromal patients start showing planning deficits before the clinical manifestation of the disease.

3) In this study we used two tests to analyze the cognitive impairment in general and the planning deficits in particular. It is recommended that for future assessments of the global cognitive status, and the planning ability, more neuropsychological batteries should be used, allowing a more comprehensive evaluation in these patients.

4) It would be interesting to explore if the correlation between the planning performance deficits and the loss of gray matter density could also be found with white matter deterioration, or changes in functional connectivity in HD-subjects.

5) Finally, even though we identified temporo-occipital degeneration associated with planning performance, we must be cautious with the interpretation of this result. The reported correlations passed the multiple comparison corrections, and each correlation showed different coefficients of determination. However, they could still have a collinearity problem, which is a main challenge to overcome in this type of study.

3. “In your Methods section, please provide additional information about the participant recruitment method and the demographic details of your participants.”

Answer:

We have added more information about the participants in the Methods section as follows:

Twenty-two HD gene-mutation carriers at the early clinical stage and twenty healthy subjects matched for age, sex, and level of education participated in this study (Table 1). The HD-subjects were recruited at the Instituto Nacional de Neurología y Neurocirugía (INNN). After the positive molecular diagnosis, the patients were invited to participate in the study. Subsequently, the cognitive assessment was performed at the INNN and the brain imaging acquisition was performed at the Instituto Nacional de Psiquiatría. The inclusion criteria for the HD-subjects were a positive molecular genetic diagnosis for HD and a Total Functional Capacity score (TFC) higher than 7 points. The exclusion criteria was the presence of neuropathological findings in the MRI non-HD related. The control group subjects self-reported no history of neurological or psychiatric disorders. They were recruited at the same period of evaluation as the HD-subject group by an open invitation to the general public. All the procedures were performed according to the Declaration of Helsinki (13), approved by the health and ethics committees of the INNN and the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM) (Nº DIC/419/14 and Nº 41/14). All participants signed a written informed consent before their inclusion in this study.

(lines 82-96).

4. “Please provide a sample size and power calculation in the Methods, or discuss the reasons for not performing one before study initiation.”

Answer:

One problem while studying rare diseases like HD is that there is a small number of patients. Therefore, the typical sample size and power calculations for larger populations are not easily suitable to study this type of diseases. In these instances, it has been suggested to test the whole population (Morris, 2021). The number of patients who participated in the genetic counselling program organized by the Instituto Nacional de Neurología y Neurocirugía was of 27 during the recruitment period, and only 22 completed the inclusion criteria. However, it has been suggested that a minimum sample of 12 subjects is enough to get an 80% power in similar voxel-based studies (Desmond & Glover, 2002). In addition, it has been shown that a small sample (less than 16 participants by group) with a Family Wise Error correction, may result in under-report of brain abnormalities, but there are no substantial changes in the number of them (only an increase of 2% if 10 more subjects were added) if the sample considers at least 16 subjects per group (Fusar-Poli et al, 2014). Similar findings have been suggested in other imaging fields, where it has been recommended testing between 16 and 32 subjects (Friston 2012). This suggested that our sample size of 22 subjects support this kind of analysis.

Desmond, J. E. & Glover, G. H. (2002). Estimating sample size in functional MRI (fMRI) neuroimaging studies: Statistical power analysis. Journal of Neuroscience Method, 118, 115-128.

Fusar-Poli, P., Radua, J, Frascarelli, M., Mechelli, A., Borgwardt, S., Di Fabio, F., Biondi, M., loannidis, J. P. A. & David, S. P. (2014). Evidence of reporting biases in voxel-based morphometry (VBM) studies of psychiatric and neurological disorders. Human Brain Mapping, 35, 3052-3065.

Friston, K. (2012). Ten ironic rules for non-statistical reviewers. Neuroimage, 61(4), 1300-1310.

Morris, E. (2004). Sampling from small populations. Retrieved from http://uregina.ca/~morrisev/Sociology/Sampling%20from% 20small% 20populations.htm

5. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

Answer:

To be able to comply with the journal policy and the ethical restrictions imposed by the ethics committee, we shared all the relevant results in a Supporting Information file. We uploaded the tables with the planning scores and their correlations with gray matter in the public repository “figshare” with the DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.13672873. All of the above does not show personal information of the participants.

However, the individual patients' data is confidential, and we are prevented from publicly sharing these data.

These are the answers to the points that deserve attention:

1. “The neuropsychological evaluation was rather limited in scope (only MoCA and SOC). This should be acknowledged as a limitation in the Discussion.”

Answer:

We agree with the reviewer’s suggestion. We have addressed this concerns in the potential limitations section of our study.

3) In this study we used two tests to analyze the cognitive impairment in general and the planning deficits in particular. It is recommended that for future assessments of the global cognitive status, and the planning ability, more neuropsychological batteries should be used, allowing a more comprehensive evaluation in these patients.

(lines 287-291).

Moreover, we are currently monitoring our participant group with a more comprehensive cognitive battery to better characterize their cognitive profile.

2. The MoCA showed differences between groups in general cognitive ability. The authors could consider taking this into account as a covariate (maybe MoCA without executive component), so as to have a more "pure" estimate of planning ability as measured with SOC in association with the VBM measure.

Answer:

We thank the reviewer suggestion. In fact, we used the MoCA score as a covariate in the voxel-based morphometry analysis. However, we did not find any effect when it was included vs. when it was not included. This could be due to the fact that the MoCA performance was very heterogeneous among the patients, since some of them had larger deficits in the memory domain, others only in attention and others in language. The above explains why this variable did not pass the Shapiro-Wilk normality test (p <.004).

3. The relevance of striatum is briefly mentioned in the Discussion, but as frontostriatal involvement has been regarded to be crucial for planning performance, the authors should devote a few more sentences to the question how this relates to their results.

Answer:

We agreed with the reviewer’s suggestion; therefore, we added the following paragraph in the Discussion section.

Usually, cognitive impairments exhibited in HD patients are associated to caudate nucleus decrease due to the spiny neurons atrophy (33). This decrease seems to affect particularly the caudate nucleus during the clinical debut, specially compromising the prefrontal cortico-striatal loop (2, 31, 32). However, our study found that putamen deterioration in HD patients also contributes to the accuracy decrease to solve planning problems. This result suggests that, in addition to the caudate nucleus, the putamen degeneration could also compromise cognitive functions during the early clinical stage.

(lines 268-280).

The requirements of the expert Reviewer are:

1. “Confusingly, the next sentence (lines 205-207) states: ‘No significant associations were found on the accuracy to solve all problems neither on the efficiency to solve “difficult” problems.’ What do they mean? What do I miss or misunderstand?”

Answer:

We are sorry for making this mistake in the drafting of the text. We have corrected the sentence as follows (and now is consistent with figure 2):

No significant correlations were found in the efficiency to solve all problems nor the accuracy to solve “difficult” problems.

(lines 204-205).

2. “The association between SOC test performance and loss of gray matter density appears to vindicate a role in early HD for the degeneration of posterior parts in what have traditionally been considered ‘frontal executive functions’. But the problem that should be recognized in this type of analysis is the widespread degeneration that may take place and the resulting collinearity of data with resulting overinterpretation of correlations. It would be nice if this issue would be addressed in the Discussion.”

Answer:

We totally agree with the reviewer comment. We added this suggestion as one of the limitations in the Discussion section as mentioned earlier in the point number 2 of the Editor's comments:

5) Finally, even though we identified temporo-occipital degeneration associated with planning performance, we must be cautious with the interpretation of this result. The reported correlations passed the multiple comparison corrections, and each correlation showed different coefficients of determination, however, they could still have a collinearity problem, which is a main challenge to overcome in this type of study.(lines 294-299).

3. “In the materials and Methods section, first line, 22 HD mutation carriers and 20 healthy controls are mentioned. But Table 1 of Results, a control group of 22 (men:women = 9:13) is mentioned”.

Answer:

We thank the reviewer for pointing out this mistake. We have corrected the healthy controls Men:Women ratio in Table 1.

4. How were symptomatic patients defined and selected? As having specific motor signs (the international definition) or of having early cognitive, behavioural or functional problems prior to the onset of motor signs? I assume the latter. The ‘Clinical testing’ section mentions only 5 patients with ‘abnormal movements’ and 2 patients with UHDRS motor score of 0. The authors should explain their patient selection in more detail.

Answer:

We rewrote the participants section to improve the description. The main criterion to determine the early clinical status of the subjects was the Total Functional Capacity scale from UHDRS:

Particularly, the symptomatic HD patients were defined by the scores obtained in the TFC scale, where a lower score reflects a reduced functional capacity. The TFC range is from 0 to 13 points, consequently, in our study we defined as early symptomatic HD to the subjects with scores higher than 7, considering the scale criteria (15).

(lines 101-105)

5. In the Discussion the authors write: ‘our analysis found a significant correlation between the RACG with low efficiency planning, and RPCG with low accuracy planning; both frontal brain regions.’ (Lines 258 and 259) I guess they mean: both limbic regions?

Answer:

We agreed with the reviewer’s suggestion. We have changed this conceptualization:

…limbic brain regions.

(line 251).

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Andre Aleman

12 Mar 2021

Planning deficits in Huntington's disease: a brain structural correlation by voxel-based morphometry

PONE-D-20-37811R1

Dear Dr. Gálvez Zúñiga,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Andre Aleman, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Andre Aleman

16 Mar 2021

PONE-D-20-37811R1

Planning deficits in Huntington's disease: a brain structural correlation by voxel-based morphometry

Dear Dr. Galvez:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Andre Aleman

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    We uploaded the tables with the planning scores and their correlations with gray matter in figshare with the DOI: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.13672873.v3. However, the individual patients' data is confidential, and we are prevented from publicly sharing these data. For more information, contact: Víctor Gálvez, PhD Cognitive Neuroscience Laboratory, Psychology, Health Sciences School, Universidad Panamericana, CDMX city, México. Telephone: +52 1 55 54 82 16 00 ext. 6429 e-mail: vgalvez@up.edu.mx.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES