Moving Toward “Laboratory-Supported” Criteria for Psychogenic Tremor

A confident clinical diagnosis of psychogenic tremor is often possible, but, in some cases, a “laboratory‐supported” level of certainty would aid in early positive diagnosis. Various electrophysiological tests have been suggested to identify patients with psychogenic tremor, but their diagnostic reliability has never been assessed “head to head” nor compared to forms of organic tremor other than essential tremor or PD. We compared baseline tremor characteristics (e.g., frequency and amplitude) as well as electrophysiological tests previously reported to distinguish psychogenic and organic tremor in a cohort of 13 patients with psychogenic tremor and 25 patients with organic tremor, the latter including PD, essential‐, dystonic‐, and neuropathic tremors. We assessed between‐group differences and calculated sensitivity and specificity for each test. A number of tests, including entrainment or frequency changes with tapping, pause of tremor during contralateral ballistic movements, increase in tremor amplitude with loading, presence of coherence, and tonic coactivation at tremor onset, revealed significant differences on a group level, but there was no single test with adequate sensitivity and specificity for separating the groups (33%–77% and 84%–100%, respectively). However, a combination of electrophysiological tests was able to distinguish psychogenic and organic tremor with excellent sensitivity and specificity. A laboratory‐supported level of diagnostic certainty in psychogenic tremor is likely to require a battery of electrophysiological tests to provide sufficient specificity and sensitivity. Our data suggest such a battery that, if supported in a prospective study, may form the basis of laboratory‐supported criteria for the diagnosis of psychogenic tremor. © 2011 Movement Disorder Society

[1]  C. Marsden,et al.  Electrophysiological aids in distinguishing organic from psychogenic tremor , 1998, Neurology.

[2]  J. Rothwell,et al.  Identification of psychogenic, dystonic, and other organic tremors by a coherence entrainment test , 2004, Movement disorders : official journal of the Movement Disorder Society.

[3]  M. Hallett.  Physiology of psychogenic movement disorders , 2010, Journal of Clinical Neuroscience.

[4]  M. Edwards,et al.  Hyperkinetic psychogenic movement disorders. , 2011, Handbook of clinical neurology.

[5]  G. Deuschl,et al.  Tremor analysis in two normal cohorts , 2004, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[6]  A. Lang,et al.  Psychogenic movement disorders , 2009, Current opinion in neurology.

[7]  J M Dambrosia,et al.  Accelerometry to distinguish psychogenic from essential or parkinsonian tremor , 2003, Neurology.

[8]  J Raethjen,et al.  Two different pathogenetic mechanisms in psychogenic tremor , 2004, Neurology.

[9]  G. Deuschl,et al.  Diagnostic and pathophysiological aspects of psychogenic tremors , 1998, Movement disorders : official journal of the Movement Disorder Society.

[10]  M. Brin,et al.  Consensus Statement of the Movement Disorder Society on Tremor , 2008, Movement disorders : official journal of the Movement Disorder Society.

[11]  E. Tolosa,et al.  Transient arrest of psychogenic tremor induced by contralateral ballistic movements , 2004, Neuroscience Letters.

[12]  J. Matsumoto,et al.  Time-frequency analysis of tremors. , 1998, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[13]  P. Thompson,et al.  Electrophysiological aids to the diagnosis of psychogenic jerks, spasms, and tremor , 2001, Movement disorders : official journal of the Movement Disorder Society.