| Literature DB >> 18259691 |
I Bosma1, C J Stam, L Douw, F Bartolomei, J J Heimans, B W van Dijk, T J Postma, M Klein, J C Reijneveld.
Abstract
PURPOSE: In the present MEG-study, power spectral analysis of oscillatory brain activity was used to compare resting state brain activity in both low-grade glioma (LGG) patients and healthy controls. We hypothesized that LGG patients show local as well as diffuse slowing of resting state brain activity compared to healthy controls and that particularly global slowing correlates with neurocognitive dysfunction. PATIENT AND METHODS: Resting state MEG recordings were obtained from 17 LGG patients and 17 age-, sex-, and education-matched healthy controls. Relative spectral power was calculated in the delta, theta, upper and lower alpha, beta, and gamma frequency band. A battery of standardized neurocognitive tests measuring 6 neurocognitive domains was administered.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2008 PMID: 18259691 PMCID: PMC2295256 DOI: 10.1007/s11060-008-9535-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Neurooncol ISSN: 0167-594X Impact factor: 4.130
Fig. 1Distribution of MEG regions
Description of neuropsychological test battery
| Letter-digit substitution test [ | This test provides a measure of psychomotor performance that is relatively unaffected by intellectual prowess and is suitable for groups with an age range exceeding 60 years. The number of items written down in 90 s is registered, as in the decrease in performance when graphomotor speed is involved |
| Visual verbal learning test [ | This version of the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test calls for various aspects of verbal learning and recall. Measures used for analysis are memory performance on trial 1 as indicator of immediate recall, total recall after five trials, delayed recall and recognition after 20 min as indicators of memory consolidation into long-term memory, and a delta score as a measure of learning capacity |
| Stroop color-word test [ | This test is a selective attention task aiming at measuring interference susceptibility and consists of three subtasks with increasing task complexity |
| Categoric word fluency [ | A simple task requiring the generation of words from semantic categories (animals) within a limited time |
| Concept shifting test [ | This test, which has two conditions of complexity, predominately measures functions associated with executive function, especially visual scanning and conceptual tracking. The motor component of this task is measured by three dummy conditions in which no cognitive capacity except for graphomotor speed is required |
| Memory comparison test (MCT) | Selective attention, mental concentration, memory and information processing |
Tumor lateralization and localization
| Left hemisphere | Right hemisphere | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Tumor location | No. of patients | Tumor location | No. of patients |
| Left frontal | 4 | Right frontal | 2 |
| Left parietal | 3 | Right frontoparietal | 3 |
| Left temporal | 3 | Right insular region | 1 |
| Left parieto-occipital | 1 | ||
| Total | 11 | Total | 6 |
Fig. 2Patients’ z-scores on the six neurocognitive domains and on total neurocognitive functioning. Note: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01. A = attention, EF = executive functioning, IPS = information processing speed, PF = psychomotor function, VM = verbal memory, WM = working memory. Performance is relative to that of age-, sex-, and education-matched healthy controls (represented by the 0-line). A higher score (i.e. approaching 0) means better performance
Significant differences in relative power between patients and controls per frequency band and accompanying statistics
| Patients | Controls | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M | SD | M | SD | |||
| Theta | Left parietal | 0.053 | 0.092 | 0.026 | 0.014 | |
| Gamma | Left central | 0.064 | 0.027 | 0.041 | 0.024 | |
| Right central | 0.066 | 0.033 | 0.047 | 0.024 | ||
| Left frontal | 0.048 | 0.027 | 0.043 | 0.005 | ||
| Right frontal | 0.050 | 0.030 | 0.037 | 0.005 | ||
Significant higher relative power is depicted in bold and in italics
Fig. 3The significant differences in relative power between the patient group and the healthy controls within the different frequency bands. Green area: significant higher relative power in the patient group compared to the healthy controls. Red area: significant lower relative power in the patient group compared to the healthy controls
Significant differences in relative power between patients with a tumor in the left or right hemisphere and controls per frequency band and accompanying statistics
| Patients | Controls | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M | SD | M | SD | ||||
| Left hemisphere | Theta | Left central | 0.039 | 0.095 | 0.018 | 0.001 | |
| Right central | 0.041 | 0.096 | 0.022 | 0.014 | |||
| Left parietal | 0.057 | 0.092 | 0.026 | 0.004 | |||
| Right parietal | 0.065 | 0.089 | 0.029 | 0.029 | |||
| Left temporal | 0.049 | 0.072 | 0.019 | 0.022 | |||
| Right temporal | 0.043 | 0.071 | 0.023 | 0.027 | |||
| Gamma | Left central | 0.063 | 0.026 | 0.041 | 0.023 | ||
| Right central | 0.069 | 0.032 | 0.047 | 0.048 | |||
| Left frontal | 0.048 | 0.027 | 0.043 | 0.011 | |||
| Right frontal | 0.053 | 0.031 | 0.037 | 0.019 | |||
| Right hemisphere | Delta | Right parietal | 0.144 | 0.303 | 0.137 | 0.050 | |
| Gamma | Left frontal | 0.050 | 0.028 | 0.043 | 0.005 | ||
| Right frontal | 0.045 | 0.031 | 0.037 | 0.025 | |||
| Right temporal | 0.042 | 0.022 | 0.045 | 0.042 | |||
| Left occipital | 0.040 | 0.029 | 0.032 | 0.025 | |||
| Right occipital | 0.048 | 0.036 | 0.037 | 0.014 | |||
Significant higher relative power is depicted in bold and in italics
Fig. 4The significant differences in relative power between the patients with a tumor in the left or right hemisphere compared to the healthy controls within the different frequency bands. Green area: significant higher relative power in the patient group compared to the healthy controls. Red area: significant lower relative power in the patient group compared to the healthy controls