HHS Public Access

Author manuscript
Laryngoscope. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2019 January 01.
Author Manuscript

Published in final edited form as:

Laryngoscope. 2018 January ; 128(1): 177–183. doi:10.1002/lary.26655.

Central Voice Production and Pathophysiology of Spasmodic

Dysphonia
Niv Mor, MD1, Kristina Simonyan, MD, PhD2,3, and Andrew Blitzer, MD, DDS2,4
1Maimonides Medical Center, Voice and Swallowing Disorders, Division of Otolaryngology- Head
and Neck Surgery, Brooklyn NY 11219
2The Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, Department of Neurology, New York, NY 10029
Author Manuscript

3The Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, Department of Otolaryngology- Head and Neck
Surgery, New York, NY 10029
4NY Center for Voice and Swallowing Disorders, New York, NY 10019

Abstract
Objective—Our ability to speak is complex, and in the field of Otolaryngology, the role of the
central nervous system in controlling speech production is often overlooked. In this brief review,
we present an integrated overview of speech production with a focus on the role of central nervous
system. The role of central control of voice production is then further discussed in relation to the
potential pathophysiology of spasmodic dysphonia (SD).
Author Manuscript

Data Sources—Peer-review articles on central laryngeal control and SD were identified from
PUBMED search. Selected articles were augmented with designated relevant publications.

Review Methods—Publications that discussed central and peripheral nervous system control of
voice production and the central pathophysiology of laryngeal dystonia were chosen.

Results—Our ability to speak is regulated by specialized complex mechanisms coordinated by

high-level cortical signaling, brainstem reflexes, peripheral nerves, muscles and mucosal actions.
Recent studies suggest that SD results from a primary central disturbance associated with
dysfunction at our highest levels of central voice control. The efficacy of botulinum toxin in
treating SD may not be limited solely to its local effect on laryngeal muscles and may also
modulate the disorder at the level of the central nervous system.

Conclusion—Future therapeutic options that target the central nervous system may help
Author Manuscript

modulate the underlying disorder in SD and allow clinicians to better understand the principal
pathophysiology.

Keywords
laryngeal motor cortex; phonation; voice; spasmodic dysphonia; laryngeal dystonia; botulinum
toxin

Corresponding author: Niv Mor, MD, Voice and Swallowing Disorders, Division of Otolaryngology- Head and Neck Surgery,
Maimonides Medical Center, 919 49th Street, Brooklyn NY 11219, Office: (718) 283-6163, Cell: (917) 502 –8294,
nivmor73@[Link].
 Mor et al. Page 2

Introduction
Author Manuscript

Our ability to speak is regulated by a number of complex specialized mechanisms that

coordinate high-level cortical processing, brainstem reflexes and peripheral nerves. While
vocalization was mapped to the motor cortex by Penfield in 1930s,1 our current
understanding of neural control of voice and speech production is based on studies
conducted in the past 5 years. However, in the field of Otolaryngology, the role of the central
nervous system (CNS) in controlling speech production has often been overlooked. In this
review, we present an overview of central control of voice production and discuss the
potential neuro-pathophysiology of spasmodic dysphonia (SD). Although SD was
characterized in 1980s and 1990s, much of what we currently know regarding the detailed
clinical phenomenology, neural correlates and genetics of SD is through contemporary
studies conducted within the past decade. A better understanding SD has helped us
appreciate the importance of CNS regulation in voice production.
Author Manuscript

Development
Voice production in humans can be voluntary like speaking and singing, or involuntary as is
occasionally observed in response to pain, fright, or emotions. Voluntary and involuntary
voice production is coordinated under the control of brain stem, midbrain and cortical
structures. The intricate neural circuitry involved in human voice production develops
gradually over time from initial involuntary shrieks and cries in infants to clearly articulated
vocal communication later in life. Vocalization is not acquired through explicit instruction,
but rather it is implicitly acquired through a gradual process of increased adaptation and
development resulting in more complex behaviors, such as speaking and singing. As a child
gradually acquires control over orofacial and laryngeal muscles, early signs of speech
Author Manuscript

develop which are often heard as babbling. As development continues, speech motor control
becomes increasingly more skilled and voice onset and offset come to be timed to
differentiate between different sounds.2

Voice, Speech and Language

The distinction between voice, speech and language is important. Voice is usually used for
speech, and speech conveys meaning. Language involves the formulation of meaningful
phrases in grammatically articular relationships. Examination of voice control without the
confounding effects of language would more accurately characterize voice production
without meaning. Non-language voice production involves voice changes alone and does not
require the use of lips, tongue and jaw movements for speech or articulation. Although
vocalization requires precise control of the larynx and utilizes skilled laryngeal motor
Author Manuscript

patterns necessary for speech production, it does not necessarily convey language or
meaning.2 Different brain levels control vocalizations of different degrees of complexity, and
the CNS control over voice production can be perceived as somewhat hierarchical.3 As one
moves up the hierarchical ladder, increasingly more complex vocalizations begin to
incorporate voice with speech and language.

Laryngoscope. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2019 January 01.

 Mor et al. Page 3

Central Control of Voice Production

Author Manuscript

The lowest level in this hierarchical system is under the control of the reticular formation
and phonatory sensory and motor nuclei within the brainstem, with motoneurons to the
intrinsic laryngeal muscles located in the nucleus ambiguus and motoneurons of extrinsic
laryngeal muscles located near the hypoglossal nucleus.3-5 (Figure 1) This level of central
control is responsible for production of innate vocalizations, which include nonverbal
vocalization such as the cry or laugh of an infant. The structure of innate vocalizations is
genetically preprogrammed.6 This means that nonverbal emotional vocalizations are not
learned actions and are not under the control of the forebrain. For example, anencephalic
infants with intact brain stems and no forebrain are still capable of vocal utterances and
verbal reactions to painful stimuli.7

As children develop and become capable of learning and mimicking vocal utterances, innate
Author Manuscript

vocalizations become increasingly more voluntary. At this stage of development, a cry can
be produced without the presence of an emotional stimulus or suppressed despite the
presence of discomfort. Although still part of the innate vocalization system, this level of
vocal control is more advanced and requires input from higher brain regions like the
cingulate cortex (CC) and the periaqueductal gray (PAG). (Figure 1) The CC and PAG are
responsible for the control of emotional vocalizations, voice initiation and modulation of its
intensity.8 The PAG appears to act as a gateway between the CC and the brainstem linking
the external stimulus with the motivational vocal reactions. The role of the PAG and CC in
voice production can be further understood in their absence. Destruction of the CC does not
interfere with voice that is initiated in the PAG. Thus, the ability to speak and vocalize is
preserved with the loss of emotional intonation. By contrast, destruction of the PAG
abolishes all vocalizations that originate from the CC resulting in mutism.8,9
Author Manuscript

The above innate emotional voice system differs from the cortically based system which
supports the development of learned voice productions necessary for speech.2,9,10 This
highest level of voice production is under the control of the speech motor cortex, including
laryngeal and orofacial motor cortex (LMC) which coordinate more than 100 muscles used
in phonation, swallowing, and breathing. (Figure 1) The LMC is responsible for highly
skilled learned laryngeal movements, such as speaking and singing. Almost all laryngeal
muscles receive bilateral innervation from the left and right LMC, thus patients with
unilateral injury to the LMC still maintain the ability of voluntarily voice control.9
Neuroimaging and electrical stimulation studies have localized the LMC in humans to area 4
of the primary motor cortex.11-16 (Figure 2) Interestingly, the motocortical location of the
larynx in non-human primates is different than in humans, where it is located far more
Author Manuscript

rostrally and ventrally in area 6 of the premotor cortex. This difference likely represents an
evolutionary adaptation towards enhanced verbal communication in humans when compared
to non-human primates. The LMC in area 4 of the motor cortex is thought to enable direct
connection between the LMC and laryngeal motoneurons in the nucleus ambiguus of the
brainstem.16,17 The importance of the LMC in human voice production is highlighted when
juxtaposed with its more limited role in the non-human primate who have markedly limited
capacity for complex speech and voice production. Faster more direct coordination of
complex laryngeal, orofacial, and respiratory movements in humans likely facilitates

Laryngoscope. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2019 January 01.

 Mor et al. Page 4

learning and voluntary vocal control for the purposes of speech and singing. In non-human
primates, this connection is made indirectly,17,18 which may explain why these species are
Author Manuscript

less capable of learning new vocal tasks. Bilateral lesions to the LMC in non-human
primates result in a very limited deficit without a profound effect on vocalizations. By
contrast, bilateral lesion to the LMC in humans result in speech loss preserving only the
nonverbal emotional vocalizations such as grunting, crying and laughing controlled through
the cingulate-PAG circuitry.9

Somatosensory Feedback
The exact receptors type and its role in laryngeal somatosensory feedback during speech are
less well known and are still debated.19 Some authors have suggested that stretch reflexes in
the laryngeal muscles may provide proprioceptive feedback assisting in voice control.20-22
Thus far no studies have demonstrated the physiological of effect stretched human laryngeal
Author Manuscript

muscle. Recent findings suggest that spindle fibers only occur within the interarytenoid
muscle and are sparse or absent in the thyroarytenoid, lateral cricoarytenoid, cricothyroid
and posterior crioarytenoid muscles.23-25 Furthermore, animal models show that sensory
afferent fibers from the internal branch of the superior laryngeal nerve (iSLN) are more
sensitive to mucosal deflection than to muscle stretch. Bhabu et al. demonstrated initiation of
the laryngeal adductor response in human by an air stimulus to the laryngeal mucosa
supporting the role that mucosal mechanoreceptors provide dynamic sensory feedback to the
central nervous system.26-31 The laryngeal adductor reflex can also be elicited by a direct
electrical stimulus to the iSLN. Both electrical stimulation and mechanical air stimulation
result in an early ipsilateral response designated as R1and a later bilateral response
designated as R2. The R1/R2 response is comparable to the blink reflex.26,29,32 Like the
blink reflex, repeated laryngeal stimulation leads to reduction of frequency and amplitude to
Author Manuscript

the R2 response and is likely a result of central inhibition.32-34 Phonation causes repeated
mechanical perturbation to the vocal folds, and central suppression likely plays an integral
role in in facilitating fluidity of sound during vocalization and speech by controlling the
adductor reflex responses.

Spasmodic Dysphonia
The importance of the role of the CNS in controlling speech production can be further
understood within the context of centrally derived speech disorders such as spasmodic
dysphonia. Laryngeal dystonia is a clinical syndrome characterized by task-specific
involuntary contractions of the internal laryngeal muscles. Respiratory laryngeal dystonia,
results in laryngeal contraction of varied degrees during breathing that usually disappears
with sleep, and spares patients’ fluency during speech.35 Patients with “singers dystonia”
Author Manuscript

have laryngeal hyperkinesias only while singing without affecting conversational

speech.36,37 Spasmodic dysphonia (SD) is a focal dystonia affecting fluency of voice during
speech and is the most commonly affected task of the laryngeal dystonias. Focal dystonias
were believed to result from dysfunction at the level of the basal ganglia, although this view
has recently been expanded to include the pathophysiological network to the cerebellum and
sensorimotor cortical regions.38

Laryngoscope. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2019 January 01.

 Mor et al. Page 5

Although the exact pathophysiology of SD is unknown, recently, structural alterations in

Author Manuscript

brain organization were demonstrated in patients with SD, including focal reduction of
axonal density and myelin along the corticobulbar/corticospinal tract.39-43 Functional
magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) identified brain abnormalities in patients with SD and
demonstrated a greater extent of brain activation in the cortical brain regions responsible for
the control of voice production during both symptomatic driven and asymptomatic
tasks.44-46 The extent of activation within the subcortical structures (basal ganglia, thalamus,
and cerebellum) was also increased, but only during symptomatic speech but was decreased
during asymptomatic laryngeal tasks. These changes were noted both in patients with
adductor and abductor SD and suggest that the primary disturbance in SD is associated with
dysfunction of the sensorimotor cortex as well as the basal ganglia–thalamo-cortical
circuitry. (Figure 3)

A recent study also found neurochemical alterations in the basal ganglia in patients with
Author Manuscript

SD.47 Positron emission tomography with the radioligand [11C] raclopride (RAC) was used
to explore striatal dopaminergic neurotransmission during symptomatic speech and was
compared to healthy controls. Finger tapping was used as an internally controlled task and
was designated as an asymptomatic task. Patients with SD had fewer available striatal
dopamine D2 /D3 receptors as well as decreased levels of dopamine release during
symptomatic speech. Interestingly, patients with SD demonstrated increased dopamine
release during the asymptomatic tasks (finger tapping) when compared to healthy controls. It
is possible that decreased dopaminergic transmission is responsible for the generation of
symptoms in patients with SD, and the observed increased striatal dopaminergic function
compensatory adaptation of the nigrostriatal dopaminergic system to decreased dopamine
D2 /D3 receptor availability. Also patients who were more symptomatic had greater RAC
displacement and those with longer duration of spasmodic dysphonia had decreased task-
Author Manuscript

induced RAC displacement.

Neural abnormalities described in spasmodic dysphonia explain which brain regions and
their connections or neurochemical makeup that is implicated in the pathophysiology of this
disorder. Further identification of these alterations in spasmodic dysphonia and other voice
disorders can not only help physician better understand the disorder itself but could
simultaneously help define the contribution of specific brain regions in normal voice control.

Treatment of Spasmodic Dysphonia

The role of the CNS in voice production can be further elucidated in the context of the
evolution of the treatment of SD. Although SD is now recognized as a CNS disorder, initial
attempts to restore voice focused at alterations to the laryngeal framework, muscles or
Author Manuscript

peripheral nerves.48 Initial studies reported an 85-90% success rate following recurrent
laryngeal nerve (RLN) transection; however, a follow-up study showed that 64% of patients
had return of pathologic voice quality.49-51 Previous explanations for the return of the
disorder have been proposed, including reinnervation by proximal RLN axons.52 In an
attempt to provide permanent selective denervation, Berke et al. performed selective
laryngeal adduction denervation and reinnervation (SLAD/R).53 This procedure incorporates
bilateral RLN transection to branches responsible for innervating only the adductor

Laryngoscope. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2019 January 01.

 Mor et al. Page 6

laryngeal muscles. To prevent unwanted reinnervation from the RLN and to maintain muscle
Author Manuscript

tone, the cut branches were anastomosed to a branch of the ansa cervicalis. Initial results
with SLAD/R were promising and showed improved success when compared to RLN
transection alone. However, long-term results demonstrated return of voice breaks in 26%
and a persistent breathy voice quality in 30%.54

Disappointing results with any surgical alterations, weather to the end-organ or peripheral
nerves, to provide long-term symptomatic relief are likely due to the failure of surgery to
address the CNS. Surgery is permanent and fixed alterations do not account for the
possibility of CNS plasticity and adaption.55 In addition, RLN transection does not address
the numerous interconnections within the larynx and interconnections between the superior
laryngeal nerve SLN and RLN (Figure 4). Theoretically these interconnections could allow
persistent CNS access to alter normal laryngeal muscles physiology.56-61
Author Manuscript

Botulinum Toxin
In 1986, Blitzer found dramatic improvement of voice quality following direct injection of
botulinum toxin (BoNT) to the affected laryngeal muscles.62 BoNT is a 150-Kilodalton
exotoxin produced from clostridium botulinum, whose action is medicated through the
cleavage of docking proteins responsible for membrane fusion of pre-synaptic vesicles and
is now the gold standard for treatment for laryngeal dystonia. Cleavage of these docking
proteins inhibits release of acetylcholine (Ach) at the neuromuscular junction and results in
muscle weakness. Unlike surgery, BoNT is continuously metabolized, and the ever-changing
effect does not allow for central adaptation. In addition to weakening laryngeal muscle
activity, BoNT decreases the activation of muscle fibers directly through its effect on the
intrafusal sensory fibers. However, local chemodenervation does not fully explain the
clinical effects of BoNT. If BoNT interfered solely with muscle action and sensory fiber
Author Manuscript

tone, then BoNT injections should have no effect on central efferent pathways. However, it
is well known that unilateral BoNT injections reduce involuntary aberrant contractions to the
contralateral untreated laryngeal muscle groups.63,64 A possible explanation for this finding
is that modulation of the laryngeal muscles has an affect on the sensory feedback loop.

It has also been shown that the aberrant central activity at the primary sensorimotor cortex
(areas 3,1,2) is normalized after peripheral BoNT injections, demonstrating BoNT’s effect
on modulating the central nervous system. 65 Although, the exact mechanism is unknown, it
is feasible that elements of BoTN are transmitted through the peripheral nerves in a
retrograde fashion and modulate the central interneurons directly.66,67 Whatever the cause,
BoNT is effective and its actvity does not appear to be limited to local alterations of the
laryngeal muscles.
Author Manuscript

Future therapeutic options targeting the central nervous system in SD are currently being
investigated. A recent survey showed that 55.9 % of patients with SD had improvement in
voice quality following ingestion of alcohol. This observation is likely related to alcohol’s
effect on the central nervous system (via GABA function).68 This finding led researchers to
investigate the effects of drugs that could potentially improve SD voice symptoms by acting
similar to alcohol on GABAergic transmission. Thus far a metabolite of sodium oxybate
which behaves as a GABA receptor agonist has found to improve SD symptoms in 82.2% of

Laryngoscope. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2019 January 01.

 Mor et al. Page 7

SD patients who had previously had symptomatic improvement following alcohol

ingestion.69-73
Author Manuscript

Conclusion
Our ability to produce purposeful vocalizations and speak fluently is regulated by a complex
network of mechanisms originating at the level of the CNS. Central regulation in voice
production and speech is crucial. Spasmodic dysphonia is a disorder of the CNS and is an
example of selectively disordered central voice regulation. Recent studies suggest that SD
results from a primary central disturbance in the LMC and its circuitry. BoNT has shown
great efficacy in treating patients’ symptoms. Injection of BoNT to the laryngeal muscles is
not limited to its effect locally and also conveys an effect to the CNS. Nevertheless, it is
important to highlight that BoNT is effective at only temporarily treating the symptoms
related to SD and does not ultimately treat the underlying central disturbance. Future
Author Manuscript

therapeutic options that target the central nervous system may help modulate the disorder
and allow clinicians to better understand the pathophysiology of SD. Lastly, a better
understanding of the types of receptors and the role they play in laryngeal somatosensory
feedback during voice production and speech may provide us with additional understandings
of the exact therapeutic role of BoNT both locally and centrally in treating the vocal
symptoms related to SD.

Acknowledgments
Funding/ Disclosure/ Conflict of Interests:

K. Simonyan was supported by the grants from National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders
(R01DC011805, R01DC012545) and National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (R01NS088160).
Author Manuscript

References
1. Penfield W, Boldrey E. Somatic motor and sensory representation in the cerebral cortex of man as
studied by electrical stimulation. Brain. 1937; 60:389–443.
2. Ludlow C. Central Nervous System Control of Voice and Swallowing. J Clin Neurophysiol. 2015
Aug; 32(4):294–303. [PubMed: 26241238]
3. Simonyan K, Horwitz B. Laryngeal Motor Cortex and Control of Speech in Humans. Neuroscientist.
2011 Apr; 17(2):197–208. [PubMed: 21362688]
4. Lalwani, AK. Current Diagnosis & Treatment Otolaryngology: Head and Neck Surgery. 3. New
York: McGraw-Hill Medical; 2011.
5. Flint, PW., Haughey, BH., Lund, VJ., Niparko, JK., Richardson, MA., Robbins, KT., et al.
Cummings Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery. 5. Philadelphia: Mosby; 2010.
6. Scheiner E, Hammerschmidt K, Jurgens U, Zwirner P. The influence of hearing impairment on
preverbal emotional vocalizations of infants. Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2004; 56:27–40. [PubMed:
Author Manuscript

14767158]
7. Monnier M, Willi H. The integrative activity of the nervous system of a meso-rhombencephalic
anencephalus. II. Anatomical part. Monatsschr Psychiatr Neurol. 1953; 126:259–73. [PubMed:
13154256]
8. Demeurisse G, Alberti Fabbro F. Complete mutism after midbrain periaqueductal gray lesion.
Antonio Esposito, NeuroReport. 1999; 10:681–685.
9. Jurgens U. Neural pathways underlying vocal control. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2002; 26:235–58.
[PubMed: 11856561]

Laryngoscope. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2019 January 01.

 Mor et al. Page 8

10. Jurgens U. The neural control of vocalization in mammals: a review. J Voice. 2009; 23:1–10.
[PubMed: 18207362]
Author Manuscript

11. Brown S, Ngan E, Liotti M. A larynx area in the human motor cortex. Cereb Cortex. 2008; 18:837–
45. [PubMed: 17652461]
12. Loucks TM, Poletto CJ, Simonyan K, Reynolds CL, Ludlow CL. Human brain activation during
phonation and exhalation: common volitional control for two upper airway functions. Neuroimage.
2007; 36:131–43. [PubMed: 17428683]
13. Rodel RM, Olthoff A, Tergau F, et al. Human cortical motor representation of the larynx as
assessed by transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). Laryngoscope. 2004; 114:918–22. [PubMed:
15126757]
14. Simonyan K, Ostuni J, Ludlow CL, Horwitz B. Functional but not structural networks of the
human laryngeal motor cortex show left hemispheric lateralization during syllable but not
breathing production. J Neurosci. 2009; 29:14912–23. [PubMed: 19940187]
15. Wilson SM, Saygin AP, Sereno MI, Iacoboni M. Listening to speech activates motor areas involved
in speech production. Nat Neurosci. 2004; 7:701–2. [PubMed: 15184903]
16. Simonyan K. The laryngeal motor cortex: its organization and connectivity. Current Opinion in
Author Manuscript

Neurobiology. 2013; 28:15–2.

17. Simonyan K, Jurgens U. Efferent subcortical projections of the laryngeal motorcortex in the rhesus
monkey. Brain Res. 2003; 974:43–59. [PubMed: 12742623]
18. Jurgens U. Projections from the cortical larynx area in the squirrel monkey. Exp Brain Res. 1976;
25:401–411. [PubMed: 821768]
19. Ludlow C. Central nervous system control of the laryngeal muscles in humans. Respir Physiol
Neurobiol. 2005 Jul 28; 147(2-3):205–222. [PubMed: 15927543]
20. Kirchner JA, Wyke B. Articular reflex mechanisms in the larynx. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 1965;
74:749–769. [PubMed: 5846536]
21. Abo-El-Enein MA, Wyke B. Laryngeal myotactic reflexes. Nature. 1966; 209:682–686. [PubMed:
5922127]
22. Wyke BD. Laryngeal myotactic reflexes and phonation. Folia Phoniat. 1974; 26:249–264.
[PubMed: 4426534]
23. Ibrahim MK, Abd El Rahman S, Mahran ZY. Experimental studies on the afferent innervation of
Author Manuscript

the cricothyroid muscle in dogs. Acta Anat (Basel). 1980; 106:171–179. [PubMed: 6446225]
24. Brandon CA, Rosen C, Georgelis G, Horton MJ, Mooney MP, Sciote JJ. Staining of human
thyroarytenoid muscle with myosin antibodies reveals some unique extrafusal fibers, but no
muscle spindles. J Voice. 2003; 17:245–254. [PubMed: 12825656]
25. Tellis CM, Rosen C, Thekdi A, Sciote JJ. Anatomy and fiber type composition of human
interarytenoid muscle. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2004; 113:97–107. [PubMed: 14994762]
26. Bhabu P, Poletto C, Mann E, Bielamowicz S, Ludlow CL. Thyroarytenoid muscle responses to air
pressure stimulation of the laryngeal mucosa in humans. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2003;
112:834–840. [PubMed: 14587972]
27. Aviv JE, Martin JH, Kim T, Sacco RL, Thomson JE, Diamond B, Close LG. Laryngopharyngeal
sensory discrimination testing and the laryngeal adductor reflex. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 1999;
108:725–730. [PubMed: 10453777]
28. Ambalavanar R, Tanaka Y, Selbie WS, Ludlow CL. Neuronal activation in the medulla oblongata
during selective elicitation of the laryngeal adductor response. J Neurophysiol. 2004; 92:2920–
2932. [PubMed: 15212423]
Author Manuscript

29. Ludlow CL, VanPelt F, Koda J. Characteristics of late responses to superior laryngeal nerve
stimulation in humans. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 1992; 101:127–134. [PubMed: 1739256]
30. Sasaki CT, Suzuki M. Laryngeal reflexes in cat, dog and man. Arch Otolaryngol. 1976; 102:400–
402. [PubMed: 938318]
31. Suzuki M, Sasaki CT. Laryngeal spasm: a neurophysiologic redefinition. Ann Otol Rhinol
Laryngol. 1977; 86:150–158. [PubMed: 848825]
32. Sanes JN, Ison JR. Habituation and sensitization of components of the human eyeblink reflex.
Behav Neurosci. 1983; 97:833–836. [PubMed: 6639751]

Laryngoscope. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2019 January 01.

 Mor et al. Page 9

33. Ludlow CL, Schulz GM, Yamashita T, Deleyiannis FW. Abnormalities in long latency responses to
superior laryngeal nerve stimulation in adductor spasmodic dysphonia. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol.
Author Manuscript

1995; 104:928–935. [PubMed: 7492063]

34. Kearney P, Poletto C, Mann EA, Ludlow CL. Suppression of thyroarytenoid muscle responses
during repeated air pressure stimulation of the laryngeal mucosa in awake humans. Ann Otol
Rhinol Laryngol. 2005; 114:264–270. [PubMed: 15895780]
35. Blitzer A, Brin MF, Stewart CF. Botulinum toxin management of spasmodic dysphonia (laryngeal
dystonia): a 12-year experience in more than 900 patients. Laryngoscope. 1998; 108(10):1435–41.
[PubMed: 9778279]
36. Chitkara A, Meyer T, Keidar A, Blitzer A. Singer’s dystonia: first report of a variant of spasmodic
dysphonia. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2006; 115(2):89–92. [PubMed: 16514788]
37. Grillone GA, Blitzer A, Brin MF, Annino DJ Jr, Saint-Hilaire MH. Treatment of adductor laryngeal
breathing dystonia with botulinum toxin type A. Laryngoscope. 1994; 104:30–32. [PubMed:
8295454]
38. Battistella G, Termsarasab P, Ramdhani RA, Fuertinger S, Simonyan K. Isolated Focal Dystonia as
a Disorder of Large-Scale Functional Networks. Cereb Cortex. 2015:pii. bhv313. [Epub ahead of
Author Manuscript

print].
39. Simonyan K, Berman BD, Herscovitch P, Hallett M. Abnormal Striatal Dopaminergic
Neurotransmission during Rest and Task Production in Spasmodic Dysphonia. The Journal of
Neuroscience. 2013; 33(37):14705–14714. [PubMed: 24027271]
40. Berardelli A, Rothwell JC, Hallett M, Thompson PD, Manfredi M, Marsden CD. The
pathophysiology of primary dystonia. Brain. 1998; 121:1195–1212. [PubMed: 9679773]
41. Hallett M. The neurophysiology of dystonia. Arch Neurol. 1998; 55:601–603. [PubMed: 9605716]
42. Defazio G, Berardelli A, Hallett M. Do primary adult-onset focal dystonias share aetiological
factors? Brain. 2007; 130:1183–1193. [PubMed: 17242025]
43. Neychev VK, Gross RE, Lehericy S, Hess EJ, Jinnah HA. The functional neuroanatomy of
dystonia. Neurobiol Dis. 2011; 42:185–201. [PubMed: 21303695]
44. Simonyan K, Ludlow CL. Abnormal Structure Function Relationship in Spasmodic Dysphonia.
Cerebral Cortex (New York, NY). 2012; 22(2):417–425.
45. Simonyan K, Ludlow CL. Abnormal activation of the primary somatosensory cortex in spasmodic
Author Manuscript

dysphonia: an FMRI study. Cereb Cortex. 2010; 20:2749–2759. [PubMed: 20194686]

46. Simonyan K, Tovar-Moll F, Ostuni J, Hallett M, Kalasinsky VF, Lewin-Smith MR, Rushing EJ,
Vortmeyer AO, Ludlow CL. Focal white matter changes in spasmodic dysphonia: a combined DTI
and neuropathological study. Brain. 2008; 131(Pt 2):447–459. [PubMed: 18083751]
47. Simonyan K, Berman BD, Herscovitch P, Hallett M. Neurobiology of Disease Abnormal Striatal
Dopaminergic Neurotransmission during Rest and Task Production in Spasmodic Dysphonia. The
Journal of Neuroscience. 2013; 33(37):14705–14714. [PubMed: 24027271]
48. Dedo HH. Recurrent laryngeal nerve section for spastic dysphonia. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol.
1976; 85(4 Pt 1):451–459. [PubMed: 949152]
49. Dedo HL, Izdebski K. Problems with surgical (RLN section) treatment of spastic dysphonia.
Laryngoscope. 1983; 93:268–271. [PubMed: 6834947]
50. Aronson AE, De Santo LW. Adductor spastic dysphonia: three years after recurrent laryngeal nerve
resection. Laryngoscope. 1983; 93(1):1–8.
51. Weed DT, Jewett BS, Rainey C, et al. Long-term follow-up of recurrent laryngeal nerve avulsion
for the treatment of spastic dysphonia. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 1996; 105(8):592–601.
Author Manuscript

[PubMed: 8712628]
52. Fritzell B, Feuer E, Haglund S, Knutsson E, Schiratzki H. Experiences with recurrent laryngeal
nerve section for spastic dysphonia. Folia Phoniatr (Basel). 1982; 34:160–7. [PubMed: 7129287]
53. Berke GS, Blackwell KE, Gerratt BR, Verneil A, Jackson KS, Sercarz JA. Selective laryngeal
adductor denervation-reinnervation: a new surgical treatment for adductor spasmodic dysphonia.
Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 1999; 108(3):227–231. [PubMed: 10086613]
54. Chhetri DK, Mendelsohn AH, Blumin JH, Berke GS. Long-term follow-up results of selective
laryngeal adductor denervation-reinnervation surgery for adductor spasmodic dysphonia.
Laryngoscope. 2006; 116(4):635–642. [PubMed: 16585872]

Laryngoscope. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2019 January 01.

 Mor et al. Page 10

55. Wissel J, Muller J, Ebersbach G, Poewe W. Trick maneuvers in cervical dystonia: investigation of
movement- and touch-related changes in polymyographic activity. Mov Disord. 1999; 14:994–999.
Author Manuscript

[PubMed: 10584675]
56. Sunderland S, Swaney WE. The intraneural topography of the recurrent laryngeal nerve in man.
Anat Rec. 1952 Nov; 114(3):411–26. [PubMed: 12996881]
57. Chitkara, AE. Neuroanatomy of the larynx. In: Sulica, L., Blitzer, A., editors. Berlin ed Vocal Fold
Paralysis. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag; 2006. p. 3-14.
58. Sanders I, Rai S, Han Y, Biller HF. Human vocalis contains distinct superiorand inferior
subcompartments: possible candidates for the two masses of vocal fold vibration. Ann Otol Rhinol
Laryngol. 1998; 107:826–833. [PubMed: 9794610]
59. Sander I, Han Y, Wang J, Biller H. Muscle spindles are concentrated in the superior vocalis
subcompartemtn of the human thyroarytenoid muscle. J Voice. 1998; 12:7–16. [PubMed:
9619974]
60. Sanduo JR, Maranillo E, Leon X, Mirapeix RM, Orus C, Quer M. An anatomical study of
anastomosis between laryngeal nerves. Laryngoscope. 1999; 109:983–987. [PubMed: 10369294]
61. Dedo HH, Ogura JH. Vocal cord electromyography in the dog. Laryngoscopy. 1965; 75:201–211.
Author Manuscript

62. Blitzer A, Lovelace RE, Brin MF, Fahn S, Fink ME. Electromyographic findings in focal laryngeal
dystonia (spastic dysphonia). Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 1985; 94(6 Pt 1):591–594. [PubMed:
4073737]
63. Ludlow C. Spasmodic Dysphonia: a Laryngeal Control Disorder Specific to Speech. The Journal of
Neuroscience. 2011; 31(3):793–797. [PubMed: 21248101]
64. Bielamowicz S, Ludlow CL. Effects of botulinum toxin on pathophysiology in spasmodic
dysphonia. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2000; 109:194–203. [PubMed: 10685573]
65. Ali SO, Thomassen M, Schulz GM, et al. Alterations in CNS activity induced by botulinum toxin
treatment in spasmodic dysphonia: an H215O PET study. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2006;
49:1127–1146. [PubMed: 17077220]
66. Moreno-Lopez B, Pastor AM, de la Cruz RR, Delgado-Garcia JM. Dose-dependent, central effects
of botulinum neurotoxin type A: a pilot study in the alert behaving cat. Neurology. 1997; 48:456–
464. [PubMed: 9040739]
67. Antonucci F, Rossi C, Gianfranceschi L, Rossetto O, Caleo M. Long-distance retrograde effects of
Author Manuscript

botulinum neurotoxin A. J Neurosci. 2008; 28:3689–3696. [PubMed: 18385327]

68. Kirke DN, Frucht SJ, Simonyan K. Alcohol responsiveness in laryngeal dystonia: a survey study. J
Neurol. 2015; 262(6):1548–1556. [PubMed: 25929664]
69. FDA Approval Letter for Xyrem; Indication: EDS (Excessive Daytime Sleepiness) associated with
narcolepsy. US Food and Drug Administration; 2005 Nov 18. Retrieved 2010-10-03
70. FDA Approval Letter for Xyrem; Indication: Cataplexy associated with narcolepsy. US Food and
Drug Administration; 2002 Jul 17. Retrieved 2010-10-03
71. Summary Basis of Decision (SBD): Xyrem. Health Canada. 2006 Mar 22. Retrieved 2012-11-02.
72. Simonyan, K., Frucht, SJ. Long-term Effect of Sodium Oxybate (XyremH) in Spasmodic
Dysphonia with Vocal Tremor. In: Louis, ED., editor. Tremor Other Hyperkinet Mov. Vol. 3. 2013.
tre-03-206-4731-1
73. Rumbach AF, Blitzer A, Frucht SJ, Simonyan K. An open-label study of sodium oxybate
(Xyrem®) in spasmodic dysphonia. The Laryngoscope. 2016 [In Press].
Author Manuscript

Laryngoscope. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2019 January 01.

 Mor et al. Page 11
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Figure 1.
Hierarchical organization of central voice control depicting different interconnected levels of
the voice control. The lowest level represented by the brain stem and spinal cord. Higher
Author Manuscript

level of voice control is represented by the periaqueductal gray (PAG) and cingulate cortex
(CC). The highest level is represented by the laryngeal/orofacial motor cortex (LMC). The
dotted lines represent interconnections between regions.

Laryngoscope. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2019 January 01.

 Mor et al. Page 12
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Figure 2.
A) Motor sequence within the primary motor cortex with the vocalization region in the
inferior portion of the precentral gyrus. B) Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging studies
of 19 patients during voice production. Bilateral peaks of laryngeal/orofacial motor cortex
(LMC) activation were found in the area 4 with an additional peak of activation in the left
area 6. TR. PYR. = tractus pyramidalis [With permission from Simonyan K. The laryngeal
Author Manuscript

motor cortex: its organization and connectivity. Current Opinion in Neurobiology 2013;
28:15–2]
Author Manuscript

Laryngoscope. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2019 January 01.

 Mor et al. Page 13
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Figure 3.
Interplay between structural, functional and neurochemical alterations. Microstructural
changes of the basal ganglia and sensorimotor cortex noted by Functional Magnetic
Resonance Imaging have a global effect on brain sensorimotor network, organization and
function.
Author Manuscript

Laryngoscope. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2019 January 01.

 Mor et al. Page 14
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Figure 4.
Author Manuscript

Anastomoses between the laryngeal nerves. SLN = superior laryngeal nerve; ILN = internal
laryngeal nerve; ELN = external laryngeal nerve; RN = recurrent nerve; 1 = Galen’s
anastomosis; 2 = deep arytenoid plexus; 2’ = superficial arytenoid plexus; 3 = cricoid
anastomosis; 4 = thyroarytenoid anastomosis; 5 = foramen thyroideum anastomosis; 6 =
cricothyroid anastomosis. [With permission from Sanudo, JR, Maranillo E, Leon, X,
Mirapeix RM, Orus C, Quer M. An Anatomical Study of Anastomoses Between the
Laryngeal Nerves. The Laryngoscope. 1999; 109(6): 983-987]
Author Manuscript

Laryngoscope. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2019 January 01.