| Literature DB >> 35935423 |
Fan Chang1,2, Haozhe Li1, Ningning Li3, Shengyu Zhang1, Chao Liu1, Qinting Zhang1, Weixiong Cai1.
Abstract
Most patients with neurocognitive disorders after traumatic brain injury (TBI) show executive dysfunction, in which the pre-frontal cortex (PFC) plays an important role. However, less objective evaluation technique could be used to assess the executive dysfunction in these patients. Functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS), which is a non-invasive technique, has been widely used in the study of psychiatric disorders, cognitive dysfunction, etc. The present study aimed to explore whether fNIRS could be a technique to assess the damage degree of executive function in patients with neurocognitive disorders after TBI by using the Stroop and N-back tasks in PFC areas. We enrolled 37 patients with neurocognitive disorders after TBI and 60 healthy controls. A 22-channel fNIRS device was used to record HbO during Stroop, 1-back and 2-back tasks. The results showed that patients made significantly more errors and had longer response times than healthy controls. There were statistically significant differences in HbO level variation in bilateral frontopolar, bilateral inferior frontal gyrus and left middle temporal gyrus during Stroop color word consistency tasks and in left frontopolar during Stroop color word inconsistency tasks. During 2-back tasks, there were also statistically significant differences in HbO level variation in bilateral frontopolar, bilateral inferior frontal gyrus, bilateral dorsolateral pre-frontal cortex. According to brain activation maps, the patients exhibited lower but more widespread activation during the 2-back and Stroop color word consistency tasks. The fNIRS could identify executive dysfunction in patients with neurocognitive disorders after TBI by detecting HbO levels, which suggested that fNIRS could be a potential objective evaluation technique in neurocognitive disorders after TBI.Entities:
Keywords: Stroop task; executive function; fNIRS (functional near infrared spectroscopy); n-back task; neurocognitive disorders; traumatic brain injury
Year: 2022 PMID: 35935423 PMCID: PMC9352882 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2022.903756
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychiatry ISSN: 1664-0640 Impact factor: 5.435
Figure 1The locations of 22 channels.
Demographic and clinical characteristics in patients and controls.
|
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Male/female | 22/33 | 16/14 | 1.729a | 0.19a |
| Age in years | 41.56 ± 10.21 | 40.89 ± 11.72 | 0.288 | 0.78 |
| Education in years | 10.53 ± 4.79 | 10.50 ± 4.46 | 0.052 | 0.98 |
| IQ | 93.19 ± 19.28 | 67.33 ± 12.77 | 9.080 | 0.001* |
| GCS | / | 14.74 ± 1.28 | / | / |
| SDSS | 0.25 ± 0.15 | 5.83 ± 1.76 | −10.160 | 0.001* |
| ADL | 14.57 ± 1.06 | 21.84 ± 3.68 | −13.162 | 0.001* |
Data were presented as mean ± SD. IQ, intelligence quotient; GCS, Glasgow coma scale; ADL, activity of daily living; SDSS, social disability screening schedule. .
The relationships between channels and brain areas.
|
|
|
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| |||
| 1 | −51 | 31 | −13 | L | BA47 |
| 2 | −48 | 51 | −4 | L | BA10 |
| 3 | −34 | 65 | 2 | L | BA10 |
| 4 | −15 | 73 | 7 | L | BA10 |
| 5 | 12 | 74 | 5 | R | BA10 |
| 6 | 31 | 68 | 0 | R | BA10 |
| 7 | 49 | 53 | −5 | R | BA10 |
| 8 | −61 | 7 | −12 | L | BA21 |
| 9 | −55 | 37 | 6 | L | BA45 |
| 10 | −42 | 56 | 13 | L | BA10 |
| 11 | −23 | 68 | 18 | L | BA10 |
| 12 | −3 | 68 | 21 | L | BA10 |
| 13 | 24 | 70 | 17 | R | BA10 |
| 14 | 46 | 56 | 13 | R | BA10 |
| 15 | 58 | 35 | 7 | R | BA45 |
| 16 | −60 | 19 | 15 | L | BA45 |
| 17 | −48 | 41 | 26 | L | BA46 |
| 18 | −32 | 55 | 30 | L | BA10 |
| 19 | −12 | 62 | 34 | L | BA9 |
| 20 | 13 | 64 | 34 | R | BA10 |
| 21 | 35 | 56 | 29 | R | BA10 |
| 22 | 54 | 37 | 24 | R | BA46 |
MNI, Montreal neurological institute; L, left; R, right; BA, Brodmann area; X axis, sagittal axis; Y axis, vertical axis; Z axis, coronal axis.
The β values during Stroop tasks in patients and healthy controls.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Color word | 3 | 0.002 ± 0.010 | −0.004 ± 0.012 | 0.041 | 0.121 |
| inconsistency | 4 | 0.002 ± 0.008 | −0.003 ± 0.008 | 0.014 | 0.121 |
| 12 | 0.003 ± 0.007 | −0.002 ± 0.010 | 0.022 | 0.121 | |
| Color word | 3 | 0.003 ± 0.007 | −0.003 ± 0.008 | 0.015 | 0.085 |
| consistency | 4 | 0.002 ± 0.005 | −0.002 ± 0.009 | 0.031 | 0.085 |
| 8 | 0.001 ± 0.007 | −0.010 ± 0.002 | 0.007 | 0.085 | |
| 9 | 0.001 ± 0.006 | −0.011 ± 0.034 | 0.026 | 0.085 | |
| 11 | 0.002 ± 0.006 | −0.001 ± 0.001 | 0.031 | 0.085 | |
| 12 | 0.002 ± 0.006 | −0.003 ± 0.007 | 0.011 | 0.085 | |
| 14 | 0.001 ± 0.007 | −0.022 ± 0.009 | 0.048 | 0.113 | |
| 15 | −0.007 ± 0.009 | −0.001 ± 0.019 | 0.019 | 0.085 | |
| 21 | 0.003 ± 0.005 | −0.001 ± 0.005 | 0.029 | 0.085 |
Data were presented as mean ± SD. Statistics: Mann-Whitney U-test.
The β values during 2-back tasks in patients and healthy controls.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | 0.002 ± 0.003 | −0.006 ± 0.012 | 0.013 | 0.047 |
| 3 | −0.001 ± 0.011 | −0.005 ± 0.006 | 0.005 | 0.026 |
| 7 | 0.003 ± 0.006 | −0.011 ± 0.017 | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| 9 | 0.001 ± 0.007 | −0.009 ± 0.024 | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| 10 | 0.007 ± 0.031 | −0.005 ± 0.010 | 0.021 | 0.058 |
| 11 | 0.002 ± 0.001 | −0.003 ± 0.01 | 0.028 | 0.062 |
| 14 | 0.002 ± 0.006 | −0.002 ± 0.013 | 0.028 | 0.062 |
| 15 | 0.003 ± 0.009 | 0.019 ± 0.014 | 0.039 | 0.077 |
| 18 | 0.003 ± 0.004 | −0.003 ± 0.009 | 0.006 | 0.026 |
| 19 | 0.001 ± 0.005 | −0.005 ± 0.012 | 0.042 | 0.077 |
| 21 | 0.003 ± 0.005 | −0.004 ± 0.011 | 0.021 | 0.058 |
| 22 | 0.008 ± 0.013 | −0.004 ± 0.009 | 0.004 | 0.026 |
Data were presented as mean ± SD. Statistics: Mann-Whitney U-test.
Figure 2The activation of brain areas during the color word consistency Stroop tasks between patients and healthy controls. The color bars in right sides mean the activated strength of brain areas.
Figure 5The activation of brain areas during 2-back tasks between patients and healthy controls. The color bars in right sides mean the activated strength of brain areas.