| Literature DB >> 34950102 |
Yin Qin1,2, Xiaoying Liu1,2, Xiaoping Guo1,2, Minhua Liu1,2, Hui Li3, Shangwen Xu3.
Abstract
Background and Purpose: Strokes consistently result in brain network dysfunction. Previous studies have focused on the resting-state characteristics over the study period, while dynamic recombination remains largely unknown. Thus, we explored differences in dynamics between brain networks in patients who experienced subcortical stroke and the effects of low-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (LF-rTMS) on dynamic functional connectivity (dFC).Entities:
Keywords: dynamic functional connectivity; resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging; subcortical stroke; time-varying connectivity; transcranial magnetic stimulation
Year: 2021 PMID: 34950102 PMCID: PMC8689061 DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2021.771034
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Neurol ISSN: 1664-2295 Impact factor: 4.003
Figure 1The schematic diagram of the research design. (A) Screening of participants; (B) Group independent component analysis; (C) sliding window approach and clustering analysis; (D) Calculate the temporal indicators and spatial characteristics of FC states.
Figure 2The lesion probability map of all the patients with stroke. The color indicates the frequency of superposition.
Demographic and clinical information of patients with stroke and healthy controls.
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| |
| Age, y | 58.52 ± 10.21 (38–74) | 62.27 ± 8.28 (40–75) | 59.90 ± 7.61 (45–74) |
| Men,% | 15 (65%) | 10 (56%) | 12 (60%) |
| Education, y | 10 ± 3.15 | 9.56 ± 3.61 | 9.30 ± 2.85 |
| Lesionvolume (cc) | 6.60 ± 6.23 | 6.15 ± 6.38 | |
|
| |||
| Left hemisphere | 10 (44%) | 8 (44%) | |
| Righthemisphere | 13 (56%) | 10 (56%) | |
| FMA-UE | 26.26 ± 12.78 (8–42) | 28.78 ± 11.95 (7–43) | |
| MBI | 54.04 ± 18.66 (21–81) | 57.83 ± 15.96 (21–87) | |
Data are presented as the means ± SD (range) for continuous data and n (%) for categorical data.
FMA-UE, Fugl–Meyer Assessment for Upper Extremity; MBI, modified Barthel Index.
Comparison of the FMA-UE and the MBI scores between the LF-rTMS and the sham stimulation groups.
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| Pre-treatment | 26.26 ± 12.78 | 28.78 ± 11.95 | 0.524 |
| Post-treatment | 49.13 ± 14.36 | 40.50 ± 10.93 | 0.041 |
|
| |||
| Pre-treatment | 54.04 ± 18.66 | 57.83 ± 15.96 | 0.496 |
| Post-treatment | 89.74 ± 11.84 | 77.17 ± 11.01 | 0.001 |
Data are presented as the means ± SD for continuous data.
Denotes differences within before and after intervention.
Denotes differences between LF-rTMS treatment and sham group at posttreatment.
LF-rTMS, low-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation; FMA-UE, Fugl–Meyer Assessment for Upper Extremity; MBI, modified Barthel Index.
Figure 3(A) Selected the spatial maps of the internal connectivity networks, auditory network (AUN), visual network (VIS), sensorimotor network (SMN), default mode network (DMN), frontoparietal network (FPN), and cerebellar (CB). (B) The average resting-state functional connectivity matrix of all the subjects. The color bar represents the z-value of the functional connectivity. Hot colors indicate positive correlation, while winter colors indicate negative correlation.
Figure 4The centroid of each functional network connectivity state with the total occurrences and percentages. (A) State I was mainly characterized by strong connections among AUN, VIS, SMN, and DMN; (B) State II was mainly characterized by strong connectivity within the perceptual networks and high-order cognitive networks; (C) State III was mainly characterized by strong connections between networks; (D) State IV was mainly characterized by weak connectivity among VIS, SMN, and FPN.
Figure 5Comparison of temporal characteristics of functional connectivity states between groups. (A) Comparison of mean dwell time (MDT) between healthy controls (n = 20) and patients with stroke (n = 23). (B) Comparison of MDT before and after sham stimulation (n = 18). (C) Comparison of MDT before and after low-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (LF-rTMS) treatment (n = 23). (D) Correlation between change in the Fugl–Meyer Assessment for Upper Extremity (FMA-UE) score and change in MDT of state II. (E) Comparison of number of transitions between healthy controls (n = 20) and patients with stroke (n = 23). (F) Comparison of number of transitions before and after LF-rTMS treatment (n = 23). (G) Comparison of number of transitions before and after sham stimulation (n = 18). * p < 0.05
Figure 6(A) The difference of functional connectivity between healthy controls and stroke group in state IV. (B) The difference of functional connectivity in state IV before and after LF-rTMS treatment. (C) The difference of functional connectivity in state II before and after LF-rTMS treatment. Warm and cool colors indicate increased and decreased connectivity.