| Literature DB >> 31504237 |
Lucia M Li1,2, Ines R Violante3, Karl Zimmerman1, Rob Leech4, Adam Hampshire1,2, Maneesh Patel5, Alexander Opitz6, David McArthur7, Amy Jolly1, David W Carmichael8, David J Sharp1,2.
Abstract
Non-invasive brain stimulation has been widely investigated as a potential treatment for a range of neurological and psychiatric conditions, including brain injury. However, the behavioural effects of brain stimulation are variable, for reasons that are poorly understood. This is a particular challenge for traumatic brain injury, where patterns of damage and their clinical effects are heterogeneous. Here we test the hypothesis that the response to transcranial direct current stimulation following traumatic brain injury is dependent on white matter damage within the stimulated network. We used a novel simultaneous stimulation-MRI protocol applying anodal, cathodal and sham stimulation to 24 healthy control subjects and 35 patients with moderate/severe traumatic brain injury. Stimulation was applied to the right inferior frontal gyrus/anterior insula node of the salience network, which was targeted because our previous work had shown its importance to executive function. Stimulation was applied during performance of the Stop Signal Task, which assesses response inhibition, a key component of executive function. Structural MRI was used to assess the extent of brain injury, including diffusion MRI assessment of post-traumatic axonal injury. Functional MRI, which was simultaneously acquired to delivery of stimulation, assessed the effects of stimulation on cognitive network function. Anodal stimulation improved response inhibition in control participants, an effect that was not observed in the patient group. The extent of traumatic axonal injury within the salience network strongly influenced the behavioural response to stimulation. Increasing damage to the tract connecting the stimulated right inferior frontal gyrus/anterior insula to the rest of the salience network was associated with reduced beneficial effects of stimulation. In addition, anodal stimulation normalized default mode network activation in patients with poor response inhibition, suggesting that stimulation modulates communication between the networks involved in supporting cognitive control. These results demonstrate an important principle: that white matter structure of the connections within a stimulated brain network influences the behavioural response to stimulation. This suggests that a personalized approach to non-invasive brain stimulation is likely to be necessary, with structural integrity of the targeted brain networks an important criterion for patient selection and an individualized approach to the selection of stimulation parameters.Entities:
Keywords: axonal injury; brain stimulation; response inhibition; salience network; traumatic brain injury
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31504237 PMCID: PMC6794939 DOI: 10.1093/brain/awz252
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Brain ISSN: 0006-8950 Impact factor: 13.501
Figure 1Materials and methods. (A) Stimuli in the SST. (B) Current density model based on the montage used showing maximum electric field strength over the right inferior frontal region. Modelling is based on non-injured standard brain and tissue. (C) The TDCS/functional MRI paradigm, comprising three separate runs of the SST with concurrent TDCS (anodal, cathodal and sham), with a 2–3-min break between each run.
Behavioural measures for the Stop Signal Task
| Anodal | Cathodal | Sham | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| SSRT (ms) | 291.3 | 295.1 ± 58.6 | 321.7 ± 48.0 |
| Stop Signal Delay (ms) | 253.7 ± 159.3 | 230.8 ± 105.7 | 200.8 ± 94.9 |
| Incorrect stop RT (ms) | 523.0 ± 104.7 | 495.8 ± 71.5 | 496.1 ± 75.1 |
| Mean RT (ms) | 545.1 ± 121.1 | 525.9 ± 87.6 | 522.6 ± 89.4 |
|
| |||
| SSRT (ms) | 343.4 ± 73.0 | 326.5 ± 62.6 | 328.1 ± 79.8 |
| Stop Signal Delay (ms) | 216.9 ± 88.3 | 234.0 ± 95.0 | 235.1 ± 131.1 |
| Incorrect stop RT (ms) | 539.7 ± 78.5 | 544.1 ± 67.0 | 541.6 ± 77.0 |
| Mean RT (ms) | 575.1 ± 86.2 | 577.5 ± 76.8 | 578.6 ± 83.1 |
Values represent mean ± standard deviation. RT = reaction time.
Figure 2SST performance with TDCS. The (A) SSRT, (B) stop signal delay, (C) mean reaction time and (D) stop incorrect reaction time for TBI (dark grey) and control (light grey) participants under sham, anodal and cathodal TDCS. Black lines are group mean values.
Figure 3Relationship between behavioural response to anodal TDCS and white matter integrity. (A) White matter integrity, assessed as fractional anisotropy, of the rAI-dACC/pre-SMA tract, cingulum and whole skeleton in TBI and control participants. Black lines are group mean values. (B) Correlation between rAI-dACC/pre-SMA tract integrity and ΔSSRTanodal across both control (light grey) and TBI (dark) participants, significant after Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons. Black trend line represents correlation across all participants; red dashed trend line represents correlation within TBI participants only; blue dotted trend line represents correlation within control participants only. (C) Correlation between cingulum white matter integrity (fractional anisotropy) and ΔSSRTanodal within TBI participants. Inset: B brain pictures show the rAI-dACC/pre-SMA tract and the cingulum.
Figure 4Brain activation differences between good and poor TBI performers during successful stopping [Stop Correct > Go Correct]. (A) Overlay of areas of brain activation (warm colours) and deactivation (cool colours) during successful stopping for TBI participants. (B) Areas of greater brain activation during successful stopping in TBI poor performers compared to TBI good performers. Results are superimposed on the MNI152 1 mm brain template. Cluster corrected z = 3.1, P < 0.05. Left: Graph shows activation from regions illustrated, black lines are group mean values. Right: Relationship between individual rAI-dACC/pre-SMA tract fractional anisotropy and default mode network BOLD response values during successful stopping.
Figure 5Brain network response to TDCS. (A) Overlay of areas of brain activation (warm colours) and deactivation (cool colours) during successful stopping for good and poor TBI performers under sham, anodal and cathodal TDCS. Results are superimposed on the MNI152 1 mm brain template. Cluster corrected z = 3.1, P < 0.05. (B) Activity within the default mode network for good and poor TBI performers and controls under sham, anodal and cathodal TDCS (region of interest for extracting parameter estimates comprised the binarized mask of the voxelwise result presented in Fig. 4A, bottom panel). Black lines are group mean values. *P < 0.05.
Figure 6Functional connectivity differences between good and poor TBI performers. Overlay of areas of brain activation where functional connectivity within the dACC/pre-SMA motor node of the salience network is greater in good TBI performers than poor TBI performers. The accompanying graph shows the interaction values between the overlaid regions and the seed region for task-unrelated connectivity (pale grey) and for [Stop Correct > Go Correct] (dark grey). Black lines are group mean values. Inset shows the region of interest used as the seed region for the PPI analysis. *P < 0.05.