| Literature DB >> 26973515 |
Aneta Kielar1, Tiffany Deschamps1, Ron K O Chu2, Regina Jokel3, Yasha B Khatamian1, Jean J Chen4, Jed A Meltzer5.
Abstract
Spontaneous signals in neuroimaging data may provide information on cortical health in disease and aging, but the relative sensitivity of different approaches is unknown. In the present study, we compared different but complementary indicators of neural dynamics in resting-state MEG and BOLD fMRI, and their relationship with blood flow. Participants included patients with post-stroke aphasia, age-matched controls, and young adults. The complexity of brain activity at rest was quantified in MEG using spectral analysis and multiscale entropy (MSE) measures, whereas BOLD variability was quantified as the standard deviation (SDBOLD), mean squared successive difference (MSSD), and sample entropy of the BOLD time series. We sought to assess the utility of signal variability and complexity measures as markers of age-related changes in healthy adults and perilesional dysfunction in chronic stroke. The results indicate that reduced BOLD variability is a robust finding in aging, whereas MEG measures are more sensitive to the cortical abnormalities associated with stroke. Furthermore, reduced complexity of MEG signals in perilesional tissue were correlated with hypoperfusion as assessed with arterial spin labeling (ASL), while no such relationship was apparent with BOLD variability. These findings suggest that MEG signal complexity offers a sensitive index of neural dysfunction in perilesional tissue in chronic stroke, and that these effects are clearly distinguishable from those associated with healthy aging.Entities:
Keywords: BOLD variability; MEG; aging; aphasia; blood flow; multiscale entropy; stroke
Year: 2016 PMID: 26973515 PMCID: PMC4776400 DOI: 10.3389/fnagi.2016.00040
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Aging Neurosci ISSN: 1663-4365 Impact factor: 5.750
Demographic, clinical, and lesion characteristics for stroke patients.
| P1 | 47 | 18 | Right | 4y 1m | Ischemic cause unknown | Nonfluent/agrammatic/ (moderate Broca's) | 34,032 | 5.07 | Left post-central, BA47, insula, LSMG, LSTG, LMTG, LITG, L temporal pole |
| P2 | 67 | 21 | Right | 15y 5m | Ischemic/embolic | Nonfluent (severe Broca's) | 169,128 | 22.53 | Left post-central, left pre-central, LSFG, LMFG, BA44, BA45, BA 47, L insula, L STG, L temporal pole, L LMTG, LITG, FUS, LSPL, LSMG, LAG, LBG |
| P3 | 70 | 24 | Right | 1 y | Ischemic | Mild anomia | 4904 | Subcortical lesion | Basal ganglia |
| P4 | 75 | 15 | Right | 2 y 4m | Ischemic/embolic | Conduction | 34,440 | 4.20 | Left precuneus, LSPL, LSMG, LAG, LSTG, LMTG, LITG |
| P5 | 79 | 10 | Right | 2 y 1m | Ischemic/embolic | Mild nonfluent | 37,896 | 4.80 | Left post-central, left pre-central, BA44, insula, LSTG, LSPL, LSMG, LAG, precuneus |
| P6 | 46 | 15 | Right | 2y 3m | Ischemic/thrombo embolic | Mild conduction/ anomia | 33,904 | 4.84 | BA 47, left insula, LSTG, LMTG, LITG, left temporal pole, LSMG, LAG, basal ganglia |
| P7 | 62 | 16 | Right | 1y 2m | Ischemic cause unknown | Conduction/anomia | 53,456 | 6.92 | L insula, LSTG, LMTG, LITG, left temporal pole, LFUS, LSMG, LAG |
| P8 | 84 | 19 | Right | 10y | Ischemic/thrombo embolic | Mild anomia | 3176 | Subcortical lesion | Basal ganglia |
| P9 | 73 | 19 | Left | 5y 8m | Hemorrhagic/ICH | Mild anomia | 27,440 | 4.09 | LSTG, LMTG, LITG, left temporal pole, LSPL, LSMG, LAG |
| P10 | 77 | 20 | Right | 7m | Ischemic/thrombo embolic | Severe Wernicke's | 23,648 | 2.81 | LSTG, LMTG, LSMG, LAG |
| P11 | 66 | 20 | Right | 5y 3m | Hemorrhagic | Conduction | 78,616 | 9.59 | Left post-central, LSTG, LMTG, LITG, LSPL, LSMG, LAG, precuneus, basal ganglia |
| P12 | 58 | 14 | Right | 1y 1m | Ischemic/thrombo embolic | Nonfluent, expressive (severe Broca's) | 148,904 | 19.32 | Left post-central, Left pre-central, LSFG, LMFG, BA44, BA45, BA47, LSTG, LMTG, left temporal pole, LIFG, L insula, LSMG, LAG, basal ganglia |
| P13 | 46 | 16 | Right | 4y | Ischemic/embolic | Nonfluent (moderate Broca's) | 101,584 | 12.71 | Left post-central, Left pre-central, LSFG, LMFG, BA44, BA45, BA47, L insula, left temporal pole, LSMG, basal ganglia |
| P14 | 57 | 12 | Right | 2y | Ischemic/embolic | Nonfluent/expressive (severe Broca's) | 146,160 | 20.31 | Left post-central, Left pre-central, LSFG, LMFG, BA44, BA45, BA47, L insula, LSPL, LSMG, LAG, LSTG, LMTG, left temporal pole |
| P15 | 65 | 20 | Right | 6y 1m | Ischemic thrombo embolic | Nonfluent/expressive (severe Broca's) | 158,936 | 21.96 | Left post-central, Left pre-central, LSFG, LMFG, BA44, BA45, BA47, L insula, LFUS, LSPL, LSTG, LMTG, LITG, left temporal pole, LSMG, LAG, left precuneus, basal ganglia |
| P16 | 68 | 13 | Right | 3y 3m | Hemorrhagic/ICH | Mild anomia | 22,152 | 3.24 | Left post-central, left precueneus, LSPL, LSMG, LAG |
| P17 | 60 | 14 | Right | 8y 8m | Ischemic cause unknown | Mild conduction | 103,896 | 14.89 | Left pre-central, LSFG, LMFG, BA44, BA45, LSMA, L insula, LSPL, LSMG, LAG, left precuneus, LSTG, LMTG |
| P18 | 69 | 15 | Right | 1y | Ischemic/thromboembolic | Moderate nonfluent, anomia | 9104 | 0.0013 | Left basal ganglia |
| P19 | 68 | 14 | Right | 4 y 7m | Ischemic cause unknown | Mild anomia | 54,192 | 6.67 | Left pre-central, Left insula, LSPL, LSMG, LAG, LMTG |
| Mean | 65.11 | 16.58 | 4.26 | ||||||
| SD | 10.86 | 3.56 | 3.89 |
Handedness assessed using Edinburgh Handedness Inventory.
Volume of lesioned voxels in microliters.
ICH: Intracerebral hemorrhage.
Language test scores for individual patients and control group averages.
| P1 | 8 | 118 | 93.33 | 93.33 | 20 | 26.67 | NT | 5 | 8 | 7.5 | 9.5 | 78.3 | 75 |
| P2 | NT | 93 | 73.33 | 40.00 | NT | NT | NT | NT | NT | NT | NT | NT | NT |
| P3 | 4 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 96.7 | 95 |
| P4 | 2 | 105 | 100 | 73.33 | 66.67 | 53.33 | 98.75 | 8 | 10 | 7.5 | 7.5 | 80 | 77.5 |
| P5 | 17 | 121 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | NT | 8 | 10 | 9.5 | 10 | 95.8 | 91.9 |
| P6 | 5 | 100 | 100 | 73.33 | 60 | 33.33 | 93.75 | 8 | 9 | 7.5 | 10 | 90.83 | 86.87 |
| P7 | 3 | 90 | 80 | 40.00 | NT | NT | NT | 6 | 8 | 4 | 8 | 62 | 62.5 |
| P8 | 6 | 98 | 100 | 100.00 | 86.67 | 80 | NT | 9 | 9 | 10 | 9.5 | 94.17 | 89.37 |
| P9 | 8 | 122 | 80 | 66.67 | 93.33 | 86.67 | NT | 9 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 98.3 | 97.5 |
| P10 | 1 | 0 | 60 | 53.33 | NT | NT | 66.25 | 7 | 9 | 6 | 6 | 62 | 51 |
| P11 | 9 | 118 | 66.67 | 73.33 | 40 | 20 | NT | 9 | 10 | 9 | 10 | 97 | 96 |
| P12 | 1 | 93 | 80 | 86.67 | 33.33 | 6.67 | 81.25 | 2 | 10 | 5 | 2 | 45 | 38.75 |
| P13 | 5 | 101 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 93.33 | 98.75 | 6 | 10 | 9.5 | 10 | 52.5 | 70.5 |
| P14 | 1 | 74 | 80 | 46.67 | NT | NT | 92.5 | 2 | 8 | 6 | 7 | 58.3 | 48.75 |
| P15 | 1 | 87 | 53.33 | 80 | NT | NT | NT | 0 | 7 | 3.5 | 0.5 | 25 | 22.5 |
| P16 | 10 | 98 | 100 | 60 | 100 | 100 | 97.5 | 9 | 9 | 10 | 10 | 95 | 96.25 |
| P17 | 3 | 91 | 100 | 60 | 73.33 | 20 | 98.75 | 8 | 9 | 7 | 10 | 86.7 | 85 |
| P18 | 2 | 94 | 86.67 | 86.67 | 40.00 | 40.00 | 88.75 | 4 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 75 | 66.88 |
| P19 | 8 | 99 | 93.33 | 100.00 | 93.33 | 53.33 | 100 | 8 | 10 | 8.5 | 10 | 90.8 | 86.9 |
| Mean | 5.22 | 94.8 | 86.66 | 75.44 | 71.90 | 58.09 | 92.39 | 6.55 | 9.17 | 7.75 | 8.28 | 76.86 | 74.34 |
| SD | 4.22 | 26.1 | 15.1 | 21.09 | 28.67 | 34.34 | 10.42 | 2.87 | 0.92 | 2.12 | 2.85 | 21.46 | 22.03 |
| Control Means | 10.32 | 115.74 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 99.30 | 97.50 | ||||||
| SD | 2.77 | 13.09 | 2.1 | 2.68 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | |||
BNT, Boston Naming Test (Kaplan et al., .
Bedside Language Score was determined by summing the Speech Content, Fluency, Auditory Verbal Comprehension, Sequential Commands, Repetition, Object Naming, Reading, and Writing scores, dividing the sum by 8 and multiplying the result by 10.
Figure 1(A) An overlay of stroke patients' lesion distributions displayed on a template brain in MNI space. Colors represent the number of patients with a lesion in each voxel. Warmer colors indicate areas of greater lesion overlap. (B) Selected slices from T1 images of individual aphasic participants showing lesion sites.
Figure 2Between group voxel-wise contrast maps of SD. For comparisons with stroke patients the results were overlaid on top of an artificially darkened anatomical image representing the lesion distribution across patients. Darker colors represent greater lesion overlap in these areas. The maps represent the voxel-wise contrast resulting from a t-test. The statistical maps were thresholded at a voxelwise threshold of p < 0.01 with a minimum cluster size of 20 voxels. False discovery rates (q-value) are indicated for each map. The same anatomical underlay and thresholding are used in subsequent figures. Blue colors reflect the decrease in BOLD SDs and SampEn, and red colors reflect increases present in significant voxel clusters within each activation map. (A) Group comparison maps of SDBOLD values. (B) Group comparison maps of SampEnBOLD values.
Figure 3Between group voxel-wise contrast maps of MSE (STP, stroke; YC, young controls; AM, age-matched). (A) The between group t-test comparison maps of MSE scales 1–5. (B) The between group t-test comparison maps of MSE scales 7–20.
Figure 4Between group voxel-wise contrast maps of relative power (STP, stroke; YC, young controls; AM, age-matched). (A) T-test comparison maps of relative delta power. (B) T-test comparison maps of relative theta power. (C) T-test comparison maps of relative alpha power. (D) T-test comparison maps of relative beta power.
Figure 5Perilesional ROI analysis. (A) Example of perilesional and contralesional ROIs from one participant. (B) Averaged power spectra for all stroke patients (n = 19) from the perilesional rim ROI and the contralesional control ROI in the unlesioned right hemisphere. (C) Averaged MSE values for all stroke patients (n = 19) from the perilesional rim ROI and the contralesional control ROI in the unlesioned right hemisphere. Shaded regions represent the standard error of the mean power estimate. Relative to the healthy right hemisphere, perilesional tissue showed a shift toward slower frequencies (delta and theta bands), decreased entropy at lower time scales from 1 to 5, and increased entropy at longer time scales. Scales 1, 2, 3 etc. represent time steps of 4.8, 9.6, 14.4 ms etc.
Figure 6Group comparison CBF maps obtained with pulsed Arterial Spin Labeling MRI (STP, stroke; YC, young controls; AM, age-matched). Blue colors reflect a decrease in CBF. (A) CBF for Stroke patients vs. Young controls. (B) Stroke patients vs. Older Age matched controls. (C) Older controls vs. Young Controls.
Figure 7Relationship between cerebral blood flow (CBF) and the MSE and spectral measures obtained from resting MEG data. The maps show whole-brain, voxel-wise Spearman's rank-order correlations between CBF and MEG measures (MSE scales 1–5, MSE scales 7–20, and relative spectral band power). (A) Spearman's rank-order correlation map between CBF and MSE scales 1–5. (B) Spearman's rank-order correlation map between CBF and MSE scales 7–20. (C) Spearman's rank-order correlation map between CBF and relative delta power. (D) Spearman's rank-order correlation map between CBF and relative alpha power. (E) Spearman's rank-order correlation map between CBF and relative beta power.
Figure 8Scatter plots showing the relationship between cerebral blood flow (CBF) and MEG measures (MSE values and spectral measures) extracted from the perilesional rim and contralateral RH ROIs for stroke patients. (A) Relationship between CBF and MSE scales 7–20, relative delta, alpha and beta power in the perilesional rim. (B) Relationship between CBF and MSE scales 7–20, relative delta, alpha and beta power in the contralesional RH ROI.
Pearson's correlations (2-tailed) between cerebral blood flow (CBF), multiscale entropy (MSE) at short (1–5) and long (7–20) time scales, and spectral band power, and measures of BOLD signal variability and complexity for stroke patients.
| MSE_1–5 | 0.385 | 0.127 | 0.247 | 0.338 |
| MSE_7–20 | − | −0.381 | 0.132 | |
| Delta | − | −0.311 | 0.224 | |
| Theta | −0.135 | 0.606 | −0.123 | 0.638 |
| Alpha | 0.169 | 0.517 | ||
| Beta | 0.331 | 0.195 | ||
| SDBOLD | −0.099 | 0.706 | 0.023 | 0.929 |
| MSSDBOLD | −0.088 | 0.738 | 0.020 | 0.940 |
| SampEnBOLD | 0.225 | 0.386 | 0.051 | 0.846 |
Values extracted from the LH perilesional rim and the RH contralateral ROI.
Correlation significant at the 0.05 level.
Significant correlations are shown in bold font.
Figure 9Scatter plots showing the relationship between cerebral blood flow (CBF) measures of BOLD signal variability and complexity (SD Relationship between CBF and SDBOLD,MSSDBOLD,SampEnBOLD in the perilesional rim. (B) Relationship between CBF and SDBOLD, MSSDBOLD, SampEnBOLD in the contralesional ROI.
Pearson's correlations (2-tailed) between multiscale entropy (MSE) at short (1–5) and long (7–20) time scales vs. spectral power at different frequency bands for stroke patients.
| MSE_7–20 | − | 0.000034 | − | 0.000103 |
| Delta | − | 0.000004 | − | 0.000162 |
| Theta | − | 0.001 | − | 0.0000002 |
| Alpha | 0.001 | 0.302 | 0.209 | |
| Beta | 0.001 | 0.001 | ||
| Delta | 0.000013 | 0.000004 | ||
| Theta | 0.001 | 0.00003 | ||
| Alpha | − | 0.004 | −0.372 | 0.117 |
| Beta | − | 0.00018 | − | 0.0005 |
Values extracted from the LH perilesional rim and the RH contralateral ROI.
Correlation significant at the 0.01 level.
Significant correlations are shown in bold font.