The basal ganglia and cerebellar loops are known to participate differently in self-initiated （SI） and externally triggered （ET） movements.　However, no previous neuroimaging studies have illustrated functional organization of these loops in vivo.　Here, we aimed to functionally visualize these loops during motor execution （performing five different frequencies of sequential left finger movements using either self-initiated （SI） or externally triggered （ET） movements） using functional magnetic resonance imaging （fMRI） with structural equation modeling （SEM）.　In the young normal volunteer, SEM showed significant interactions within the right basal ganglia-thalamo-motor （BGTM） loop during SI tasks, while that within the right cerebral hemisphere- left cerebellar loop by ET tasks.　Normal aged subjects represent decreased connectivity within BGTM loop compared with young volunteer.　The patients with Parkinson’s disease much more reduced connectivity within BGTM loop.　Thus, our approach enables us to describe the connectivity within BGTM loop in vivo.

Several studies have mapped brain regions associated with respiratory control and respiratory perception.　However, its effect to resting state networks is unknown.　Our objective was to determine the resting state networks during mild dyspnea.　Resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging data was collected for 37 healthy volunteer with or without mild dyspnea induced by resistive load.　Functional connectivity （FC） was analyzed using Statistical Parametric Mapping 12, the CONN toolbox and whole brain ROI-to-ROI analysis with cluster level-comparison.　Respiratory score showed that some participants felt dyspnea only with resistive load and others complained dyspnea at both conditions.　The former represented increase of FCs between the motor cortex/salience network and visual cortex, while the latter indicated enhanced FCs between the orbito-frontal cortex and posterior temporal gyrus.　These results suggest the heterogeneity of healthy volunteer against mild dyspnea.

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis （ALS）, also known as motor neuron disease （MND） or Lou Gehrig’s disease, is a neurodegenerative disease that results muscle atrophy and weakness due to progressive loss of motor neurons. Although it was generally believed that ALS was not complicated with cognitive impairment until the late stages of the disease, cognitive and behavioural symptoms have been described for over a century.　cognitive or behavioral dysfunction is present in 30-40% of individuals with ALS. It is estimated that 10% of ALS patients show signs of frontotemporal dementia （FTD）.　ALS and FTD are considered to be part of a common disease spectrum because of genetic, clinical, and pathological similarities.　Since it is difficult to detect the presence of cognitive dysfunction in ALS due to physical dysfunction such as dysarthria, we have to conduct tests according to physical function in order to identify cognitive dysfunction.　In this article, we review the disease concept of ALS, the characteristics, the clinical assessment, the approach, and the prognosis of frontotemporal dysfunction in patients with ALS.

The 432 subjects were tested for the CDR-J by the examiner of the J-ADNI.　Our study reexamined the CDR-J data to clarify the errors.　The results revealed that there were the following 5 types of errors.

1.　Error of insufficient information in the answers for the episodic memory task was observed in 135 subjects （31.3%） among the 432 subjects.　The examiner of the J-ADNI failed to follow the test instructions which caused this type of errors.

2.　Illegible hand-writing in the answers for the episodic memory task was observed in 24 subjects （5.6 %） among the 432 subjects.　This error type could be avoided it the examiner exercised precautions.

3.　Repetition error in the name and address memory task was observed in 19 subjects（4.4%）among the 432 subjects.　The examiner neglected the test in structions, which caused this type of errors.

4.　A blank space error refers no answer without comment.　A blank space error of one or more test items among the 79 test items of the CDR-J was observed in 188 subjects （43.5%） among the 432 subjects.　Some examiners of the J-ADNI do not believe that a blank space error on a test item makes it impossible to rate the result of the CDR-J, which caused a blank error.

5.　The 432 subjects had been rated by the examiner of the J-ADNI before our study which revealed that for 297 subjects （68.8%） among the 432 subjects, there were one or more errors in the 4 above types of errors and a part of the CDR-J was inappropriately performed.　Accordingly, these 297 subjects could not to be rated.　Subtracting the 297 subjects from the 432 subjects gives a total of the 135 subjects.　These 135 subjects were again rated by us and a rating error was observed in 69 subjects（51.1%）.　The rating errors of the 69 subjects were caused by byexaminer of the J-ADNI since he failed to follow the rating criteria in the CDR-J Rating Table.

A total of 366 subjects （84.7%） among the 432 subjects had one or more errors among the 5 types of errors, since the 297 subjects plus the 69 subjects with the rating error is the 366 subjects.　The responses of those 366 subjects were considered invalid data, while the responses of the remaining 66 subjects were considered valid data without the 5 types of errors.

Points of note regarding the CDR-J:

1.　One or more of the 5 types of errors were observed in 366 subjects （84.7%） among the 432 subjects of the J-ADNI project.　 Researchers using the CDR in research or clinical practice must endeavor honestly to prevent those 5 types of errors.　When the examiner follows instructions, and understands the premise and the rating criteria of the CDR, the 5 types of errors will be avoided.　

2.　Scientific papers using the CDR show only the rating score of the CDR, but not the details of the results for the CDR.　In the J-ADNI project, the 297 subjects who had one or more of the first 4 error types, and inappropriate performance of a part of the CDR-J were rated by the examiner of the J-ADNI, though they should not be rated.

Subtracting the 297 subjects from the 432 subjects gives the 135 subjects.　The 135 subjects were rated by us and a rating error was observed in 69 subjects（51.1%） among the 135 subjects included.　Authors of scientific papers using the CDR should rate the CDR after he ensuring that the 4 first error types are absent and the CDR was correctly performed.　They must also ascertain that there were no rating errors.

We examined a patient with probable Alzheimer’s disease （AD） whose initial symptoms were selective agraphia for Kanji and constructional apraxia.　A 56-year-old, right-handed farmer with a 12th-grade education complained of difficulty in writing Kanji.　On brain MRIs, mild hippocampal atrophy was noted.　Regional cerebral blood flow measurement with single photon emission computed tomography showed hypoperfusion in the bilateral temporal, parietal, and occipital cortices, greater on the left side.　Neuropsychological tests and Kanji/Kana writing tasks were repeated at the interval of one or two years.　In the Kana writing tasks, he had almost no problems in the first year of the examination, but showed mild impairments one year later.　However, Kanji agraphia was out of proportion at the early clinical stage.　His writing was slowly and laboriously.　In addition to non-response errors which are frequently shown in patients with typical AD, he showed a lot of minor peripheral errors.　His writing abilities gradually deteriorated during more than two years, and had also visuospatial and attentional problem.　The memory and overall cognitive decline slowly developed and deteriorated drastically after two years.　His agraphia had some features of constructional agraphia and apraxic agraphia, which reflected the lesion of predominant left parietal lobe.