Katelyn L Arnemann1, Anthony J-W Chen2, Tatjana Novakovic-Agopian2, Caterina Gratton2, Emi M Nomura2, Mark D'Esposito2. 1. From the Veterans Administration Northern California Health Care System (K.L.A., A.J.-W.C., T.N.-A., M.D.), Martinez; Helen Wills Neuroscience Institute and Department of Psychology (K.L.A., A.J.-W.C., C.G., E.M.N., M.D.), University of California, Berkeley; Department of Neurology (A.J.-W.C., T.N.-A., M.D.), University of California, San Francisco; Veterans Administration Medical Center (A.J.-W.C., T.N.-A.), San Francisco; and California Pacific Medical Center (T.N.-A.), San Francisco, CA. klarnemann@berkeley.edu. 2. From the Veterans Administration Northern California Health Care System (K.L.A., A.J.-W.C., T.N.-A., M.D.), Martinez; Helen Wills Neuroscience Institute and Department of Psychology (K.L.A., A.J.-W.C., C.G., E.M.N., M.D.), University of California, Berkeley; Department of Neurology (A.J.-W.C., T.N.-A., M.D.), University of California, San Francisco; Veterans Administration Medical Center (A.J.-W.C., T.N.-A.), San Francisco; and California Pacific Medical Center (T.N.-A.), San Francisco, CA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We tested the value of measuring modularity, a graph theory metric indexing the relative extent of integration and segregation of distributed functional brain networks, for predicting individual differences in response to cognitive training in patients with brain injury. METHODS:Patients with acquired brain injury (n = 11) participated in 5 weeks ofcognitive training and a comparison condition (brief education) in a crossover intervention study design. We quantified the measure of functional brain network organization, modularity, from functional connectivity networks during a state of tonic attention regulation measured during fMRI scanning before the intervention conditions. We examined the relationship of baseline modularity with pre- to posttraining changes in neuropsychological measures of attention and executive control. RESULTS: The modularity of brain network organization at baseline predicted improvement in attention and executive function after cognitive training, but not after the comparison intervention. Individuals with higher baseline modularity exhibited greater improvements with cognitive training, suggesting that a more modular baseline network state may contribute to greater adaptation in response to cognitive training. CONCLUSIONS: Brain network properties such as modularity provide valuable information for understanding mechanisms that influence rehabilitation of cognitive function after brain injury, and may contribute to the discovery of clinically relevant biomarkers that could guide rehabilitation efforts.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: We tested the value of measuring modularity, a graph theory metric indexing the relative extent of integration and segregation of distributed functional brain networks, for predicting individual differences in response to cognitive training in patients with brain injury. METHODS:Patients with acquired brain injury (n = 11) participated in 5 weeks of cognitive training and a comparison condition (brief education) in a crossover intervention study design. We quantified the measure of functional brain network organization, modularity, from functional connectivity networks during a state of tonic attention regulation measured during fMRI scanning before the intervention conditions. We examined the relationship of baseline modularity with pre- to posttraining changes in neuropsychological measures of attention and executive control. RESULTS: The modularity of brain network organization at baseline predicted improvement in attention and executive function after cognitive training, but not after the comparison intervention. Individuals with higher baseline modularity exhibited greater improvements with cognitive training, suggesting that a more modular baseline network state may contribute to greater adaptation in response to cognitive training. CONCLUSIONS: Brain network properties such as modularity provide valuable information for understanding mechanisms that influence rehabilitation of cognitive function after brain injury, and may contribute to the discovery of clinically relevant biomarkers that could guide rehabilitation efforts.
Authors: Anthony J-W Chen; Tatjana Novakovic-Agopian; Terrence J Nycum; Shawn Song; Gary R Turner; Nancy K Hills; Scott Rome; Gary M Abrams; Mark D'Esposito Journal: Brain Date: 2011-04-22 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Tatjana Novakovic-Agopian; Anthony J-W Chen; Scott Rome; Gary Abrams; Holli Castelli; Annemarie Rossi; Ryan McKim; Nancy Hills; Mark D'Esposito Journal: J Head Trauma Rehabil Date: 2011 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 2.710
Authors: Michael C Stevens; David Lovejoy; Jinsuh Kim; Howard Oakes; Inam Kureshi; Suzanne T Witt Journal: Brain Imaging Behav Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 3.978
Authors: Manfred G Kitzbichler; Richard N A Henson; Marie L Smith; Pradeep J Nathan; Edward T Bullmore Journal: J Neurosci Date: 2011-06-01 Impact factor: 6.167
Authors: Pauline L Baniqued; Courtney L Gallen; Michael B Kranz; Arthur F Kramer; Mark D'Esposito Journal: Neuropsychologia Date: 2019-05-25 Impact factor: 3.139
Authors: Adam Kimbrough; Daniel J Lurie; Andres Collazo; Max Kreifeldt; Harpreet Sidhu; Giovana Camila Macedo; Mark D'Esposito; Candice Contet; Olivier George Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2020-01-14 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Areeba Adnan; Anthony J W Chen; Tatjana Novakovic-Agopian; Mark D'Esposito; Gary R Turner Journal: Neurorehabil Neural Repair Date: 2017-09-04 Impact factor: 3.919
Authors: Bruce Crosson; Benjamin M Hampstead; Lisa C Krishnamurthy; Venkatagiri Krishnamurthy; Keith M McGregor; Joe R Nocera; Simone Roberts; Amy D Rodriguez; Stella M Tran Journal: Neuropsychology Date: 2017-08-31 Impact factor: 3.295