| Literature DB >> 29186388 |
Natasha Marrus1, Adam T Eggebrecht2, Alexandre Todorov1, Jed T Elison3, Jason J Wolff4, Lyndsey Cole1, Wei Gao5, Juhi Pandey6, Mark D Shen7, Meghan R Swanson7, Robert W Emerson7, Cheryl L Klohr1, Chloe M Adams1, Annette M Estes8, Lonnie Zwaigenbaum9, Kelly N Botteron1, Robert C McKinstry2, John N Constantino1, Alan C Evans10, Heather C Hazlett7, Stephen R Dager11, Sarah J Paterson12, Robert T Schultz6, Martin A Styner7, Guido Gerig13, Bradley L Schlaggar14, Joseph Piven7, John R Pruett1.
Abstract
Infant gross motor development is vital to adaptive function and predictive of both cognitive outcomes and neurodevelopmental disorders. However, little is known about neural systems underlying the emergence of walking and general gross motor abilities. Using resting state fcMRI, we identified functional brain networks associated with walking and gross motor scores in a mixed cross-sectional and longitudinal cohort of infants at high and low risk for autism spectrum disorder, who represent a dimensionally distributed range of motor function. At age 12 months, functional connectivity of motor and default mode networks was correlated with walking, whereas dorsal attention and posterior cingulo-opercular networks were implicated at age 24 months. Analyses of general gross motor function also revealed involvement of motor and default mode networks at 12 and 24 months, with dorsal attention, cingulo-opercular, frontoparietal, and subcortical networks additionally implicated at 24 months. These findings suggest that changes in network-level brain-behavior relationships underlie the emergence and consolidation of walking and gross motor abilities in the toddler period. This initial description of network substrates of early gross motor development may inform hypotheses regarding neural systems contributing to typical and atypical motor outcomes, as well as neurodevelopmental disorders associated with motor dysfunction.Entities:
Keywords: functional connectivity; gross motor; infant; network; walking
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29186388 PMCID: PMC6057546 DOI: 10.1093/cercor/bhx313
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cereb Cortex ISSN: 1047-3211 Impact factor: 5.357
Participant characteristics
| 12-Month age group ( | 24-Month age group ( | |
|---|---|---|
| Age in months | 12.4 (0.4) | 24.5 (0.5) |
| [11.7–14.5] | [23.5–25.9] | |
| Sex [ | 86 (66.2%) | 56 (56.6%) |
| Outcome group (%) | ||
| Low-risk negative (no ASD) | 37 (30.8) | 23 (23.5) |
| High-risk negative (no ASD) | 72 (60.0) | 59 (60.2) |
| High-risk positive (has ASD) | 11 (9.2) | 16 (16.3) |
| Site | ||
| CHOP | 18 | 5 |
| UW | 23 | 18 |
| WUSTL | 71 | 53 |
| UNC | 18 | 23 |
| Mullen early learning composite | 99.5 (13.7) | 99.0 (20.5) |
| [64–132] | [49–137] | |
| Mullen raw gross motor score | 16.3 (2.5) | 26.1 (2.5) |
| [9–22] | [18–31] | |
| Mullen walking item score | 1.4 (0.9) | 4.7 (1.1) |
| [0–3] | [2–7] | |
Characteristics of 12 and 24-month age groups are shown for subjects with motor and neuroimaging data. Forty-two subjects had data at both ages, 88 subjects had data at 12 months only, and 57 subjects had data at 24 months only. Standard deviations are in parentheses except where indicated. Ranges are in brackets. Negative and positive refer to absence or presence of an ASD diagnosis. CHOP refers to Children’s Hospital of Pennsylvania. UW refers to University of Washington. WUSTL refers to Washington University in St. Louis. UNC refers to University of North Carolina.
Figure 1.Infomap-derived network models based on infant/toddler and adult data. (a) Putative infant–toddler networks were derived from participants with fcMRI data at 12 and 24 months (n = 48). The 230 functionally defined ROIs comprising these networks are colored by network assignment. Naming of networks was informed by previously published adult networks. (b) A mean fcMRI adjacency matrix for 12-month data displays the 230 ROIs sorted by network. (c) An adaptation of previously published adult networks (Power et al. 2011) is based on the same 230 ROIs. (d) A mean 12-month fcMRI adjacency matrix using the adult networks is shown.
Figure 2.Walking and gross motor scores are dimensionally distributed at 12 and 24 months. Distributions of raw scores are shown for subjects with brain and behavioral data at 12 (n = 130) and 24 months (n = 99). (a) 12-month walking scores display a range of low values, consistent with emergence of walking at this age. (b) Greater walking scores at 24 months confirm developmental progress. (c) 12-month gross motor scores represent behaviors in addition to walking and show a broader continuous distribution. (d) 24-month gross motor scores are greater than 12-month scores.
Figure 3.Enrichment analyses show specific brain–behavior relationships for walking scores at 12 and 24 months. (a) A color-coded key of 13 putative infant/toddler networks is shown. (b) Matrices describe relationships between functional connectivity (fc) and walking score. Data at 12 and 24 months are shown in the top and bottom rows, respectively (b–d). The 230 ROIs comprising these networks are sorted by assigned network along the X and Y axes. Hot colors indicate strong positive relationships of fc to walking score; whereas cool colors indicate strong negative fc-walking relationships. (c) The fc-walking matrices for 12 and 24 months are thresholded to show ROI pairs with fc-walking correlations significant at an uncorrected threshold of P ≤ 0.05. (d) Matrices are colored by P-values for enrichment. Enriched blocks are labeled with an asterisk. For simplicity, results for χ2-square testing, which are comparable to the hypergeometric test, are shown in all figures. (e) This matrix is colored by P-values for the McNemar test, which evaluated differences in the level of enrichment at 12 versus 24 months. Asterisks indicate significant differences. (f) Blocks are colored based on whether they are enriched at a given time point and whether their level of enrichment also differs between time points. Here, significant network blocks (dark blue and red squares) are enriched at either 12 or 24 months and significantly different between 12 and 24 months. Other findings are discovery results.
Figure 4.The sign of fc-walking relationships is generally consistent within enriched network blocks. Locations and signs of brain–behavior relationships are illustrated for ROI pairs contributing to enrichment. Spheres represent ROIs. Red and blue sticks represent positive or negative brain–behavior relationships, respectively, between functional connectivity (fc) for an ROI pair and walking scores. (a) At 12 months, all enriched network blocks show primarily positive or negative fc-walking relationships. (b) Similar uniformity occurs at 24 months, with the exception of DAN–CO. Hatched boxes enclose significant versus discovery results.
Figure 5.Enrichment analyses show specific brain–behavior relationships for gross motor scores at 12 and 24 months. (a) A color-coded key of 13 putative infant/toddler networks is shown. (b) Matrices describe relationships between functional connectivity (fc) and gross motor score. Data at 12 and 24 months are shown in the top and bottom rows, respectively (b–d). The 230 ROIs comprising the networks are sorted by assigned network along the X and Y axes. Hot colors indicate strong positive relationships of fc to gross motor score; whereas cool colors indicate strong negative fc-gross motor relationships. (c) The fc-gross motor matrices for 12 and 24 months are thresholded to show ROI pairs with fc-gross motor correlations significant at an uncorrected threshold of P ≤ 0.05. (d) Matrices are colored by P-values for enrichment. Enriched blocks are labeled with an asterisk. (e) This matrix is colored by P-values for the McNemar test, which evaluated differences in the level of enrichment at 12 versus 24 months. Asterisks indicate significant differences. (f) Blocks are colored based on whether they are enriched at a given time point and whether their level of enrichment also differs between time points. Here, significant network blocks (dark blue and red squares) are enriched at either 12 or 24 months and significantly different between 12 and 24 months.
Figure 6.The sign of fc-gross motor relationships is generally consistent in enriched network blocks. Locations and signs of brain–behavior relationships are illustrated for ROI pairs contributing to enrichment. Spheres represent ROIs. Red and blue sticks represent positive or negative brain–behavior relationships, respectively, between functional connectivity (fc) for an ROI pair and gross motor scores. At 12 months (a) and 24 months (b), all network blocks show primarily positive or negative relationships between fc and gross motor scores. Hatched boxes enclose significant versus discovery results.