| Literature DB >> 29222477 |
Tamanna T K Munia1, Ali Haider1, Charles Schneider1, Mark Romanick2, Reza Fazel-Rezai3.
Abstract
The neurocognitive sequelae of a sport-related concussion and its management are poorly defined. Detecting deficits are vital in making a decision about the treatment plan as it can persist one year or more following a brain injury. The reliability of traditional cognitive assessment tools is debatable, and thus attention has turned to assessments based on electroencephalogram (EEG) to evaluate subtle post-concussive alterations. In this study, we calculated neurocognitive deficits combining EEG analysis with three standard post-concussive assessment tools. Data were collected for all testing modalities from 21 adolescent athletes (seven concussive and fourteen healthy) in three different trials. For EEG assessment, along with linear frequency-based features, we introduced a set of time-frequency (Hjorth Parameters) and nonlinear features (approximate entropy and Hurst exponent) for the first time to explore post-concussive deficits. Besides traditional frequency-band analysis, we also presented a new individual frequency-based approach for EEG assessment. While EEG analysis exhibited significant discrepancies between the groups, none of the cognitive assessment resulted in significant deficits. Therefore, the evidence from the study highlights that our proposed EEG analysis and markers are more efficient at deciphering post-concussion residual neurocognitive deficits and thus has a potential clinical utility of proper concussion assessment and management.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29222477 PMCID: PMC5722818 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-17414-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Concussed participants demographic information.
| Concussed Participants | Number of concussion | Loss of consciousness | Confusion | Amnesia | Post-concussion RTP days | Days from concussion incident to data collection | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| From incident 1 | From incident 2 | From incident 3 | ||||||
| 1 | 2 | No | Yes | Yes | 14 | 263 | 216 | — |
| 2 | 1 | No | Yes | Yes | 21 | 118 | — | — |
| 3 | 1 | No | No | No | 7 | 267 | — | — |
| 4 | 3 | No | Yes | Yes | 10 | 462 | 297 | 162 |
| 5 | 2 | No | Yes | Yes | 25 | 92 | 65 | — |
| 6 | 1 | No | No | No | 10 | 127 | — | — |
| 7 | 1 | No | No | Yes | 15 | 12 | — | — |
Figure 1Experimental setup for EEG data collection. (a) Data collection set up for a participant, (b) Map of 9 Electrodes locations. The locations were plotted using EEGLAB[31].
Group means and standard deviations for ImPACT composite scores of healthy and concussed groups. The test of significance was performed with statistical significance level of 0.05.
| Composite Scores | Healthy Group | Concussed Group | F value |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | |||
| Verbal Memory Index | 89.93 ± 7.87 | 87.57 ± 9.25 | 0.58 | 0.58 |
| Visual Memory Index | 86.43 ± 5.37 | 82.57 ± 7.79 | 0.25 | 0.27 |
| Motor Speed Index | 40.36 ± 5.81 | 37.28 ± 5.37 | 0.75 | 0.20 |
| Reaction Time Index | 0.62 ± 0.09 | 0.65 ± 0.12 | 0.38 | 0.59 |
| Impulse Control Index | 5.86 ± 3.21 | 6.14 ± 2.9 | 0.86 | 0.84 |
| Total Symptom Score Index | 2.93 ± 2.13 | 3.14 ± 3.53 | 0.12 | 0.88 |
EEG band power deficits between healthy and concussed group for eyes open (EO); eyes closed (EC) and vigilant task (VT) conditions. (*Denotes significant differences between healthy and concussed group at statistical significance level of 0.05).
| Condition | Participants | Delta (μV2) | Theta (μV2) | Alpha (μV2) | Beta (μV2) | Gamma (μV2) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | ||
| EO Condition | Healthy | 4.33 ± 0.25 | 3.47 ± 0.33 | 3.14 ± 0.36 | 2.48 ± 0.30 | 1.95 ± 0.15 |
| Concussed | 4.81 ± 0.34* | 3.67 ± 0.38 | 2.69 ± 0.25* | 2.14 ± 0.18* | 1.58 ± 0.21* | |
| EC Condition | Healthy | 4.21 ± 0.33 | 3.43 ± 0.28 | 3.22 ± 0.23 | 2.46 ± 0.26 | 1.92 ± 0.13 |
| Concussed | 4.66 ± 0.30* | 3.59 ± 0.33 | 2.85 ± 0.34* | 2.13 ± 0.33* | 1.50 ± 0.34* | |
| VT Condition | Healthy | 4.22 ± 0.24 | 3.38 ± 0.49 | 3.09 ± 0.40 | 2.47 ± 0.27 | 1.97 ± 0.17 |
| Concussed | 4.68 ± 0.45* | 3.58 ± 0.34 | 2.65 ± 0.28* | 2.08 ± 0.29* | 1.52 ± 0.21* |
Figure 2P-value vs. frequency plot. A set of individual frequencies from EEG data exhibits power spectral density deficits between healthy and concussed athletes. The X-axis in the figure shows the individual frequencies and Y-axis shows the level of significance. The color of bars is different based on each frequency band, and the level of significance for each EEG frequency band is shown by red lines. The p-value vs. frequency is shown during three conditions (a) eyes open (EO) (b) eyes closed (EC), and (c) vigilant task (VT). All the test of significance was performed with statistical significance level of 0.05.
Figure 3Frequencies with a significant difference in approximate entropy, activity, mobility, complexity and Hurst exponent between healthy and concussed athletes for three conditions: (a) eyes open (EO), (b) eyes closed (EC), and (c) vigilant task (VT). All the test of significance was performed with statistical significance level of 0.05.