| Literature DB >> 36137126 |
Jennapher Lingo VanGilder1, Maurizio Bergamino2, Andrew Hooyman1, Megan C Fitzhugh3, Corianne Rogalsky4, Jill C Stewart5, Scott C Beeman1, Sydney Y Schaefer1,6.
Abstract
Skill retention is important for motor rehabilitation outcomes. Recent work has demonstrated that delayed visuospatial memory performance may predict motor skill retention in older and neuropathological populations. White matter integrity between parietal and frontal cortices may explain variance in upper-extremity motor learning tasks and visuospatial processes. We performed a whole-brain analysis to determine the white matter correlates of delayed visuospatial memory and one-week motor skill retention in nondemented older adults. We hypothesized that better frontoparietal tract integrity would be positively related to better behavioral performance. Nineteen participants (age>58) completed diffusion-weighted imaging, then a clinical test of delayed visuospatial memory and 50 training trials of an upper-extremity motor task; participants were retested on the motor task one week later. Principal component analysis was used to create a composite score for each participant's behavioral data, i.e. shared variance between delayed visuospatial memory and motor skill retention, which was then entered into a voxel-based regression analysis. Behavioral results demonstrated that participants learned and retained their skill level after a week of no practice, and their delayed visuospatial memory score was positively related to the extent of skill retention. Consistent with previous work, neuroimaging results indicated that regions within bilateral anterior thalamic radiations, corticospinal tracts, and superior longitudinal fasciculi were related to better delayed visuospatial memory and skill retention. Results of this study suggest that the simple act of testing for specific cognitive impairments prior to therapy may identify older adults who will receive little to no benefit from the motor rehabilitation regimen, and that these neural regions may be potential targets for therapeutic intervention.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36137126 PMCID: PMC9499308 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0274955
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.752
Fig 1Delayed visuospatial memory test and motor skill task.
A. Participants completed the Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure Delayed Recall test (measures delayed visuospatial memory). An example drawing from one of the participants is shown. B. Participants used their nondominant hand to perform the motor task that mimicked the upper extremity movements required to feed oneself. This image is adapted from the “Dexterity and Reaching Motor Tasks” by MRL Laboratory that is licensed under CC BY 2.0.
Participant characteristics.
| Mean ± SD | Median | Range | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 68.4 ± 6.8 | 66 | 58–87 |
|
| 17.1 ± 1.9 | 18 | 14–20 |
|
| 3.4 ± 0.5 | 3.6 | 2.8–4.3 |
|
| 24.9 ± 9.4 | 23.3 | 10.7–40 |
|
| 97.1 ± 38.7 | 84.5 | 65.9–206.5 |
|
| 6 ± 0 | 6 | 6–6 |
|
| 0.86 ± 2.10 | 0 | 0–8.2 |
|
| 15.20 ± 5.67 | 16 | 2–25 |
N = 19; 6 males and 13 females. A subset of participants completed the Geriatric Depression Scale (n = 15; male = 5); scores were averaged across all visits.
Fig 2Participant one-week skill retention and correlation with delayed visuospatial memory performance.
A. Participants completed 50 training trials of the reaching task and were retested one week later to determine skill retention. Trials were consolidated into blocks of five trials each. Mean motor performance (trial time in seconds) is plotted on the y-axis, where lower values indicate better performance; vertical error bars show standard deviation. B. Skill retention was measured as the last block of the training session subtracted by the retest block (one week later). Participants’ skill retention is on the y-axis and Delayed Recall scores are on the x-axis; the figure illustrates that skill retention and Delayed Recall scores are positively correlated, where higher Delayed Recall scores predict better skill retention.
Whole-brain fractional anisotropy and radial diffusivity results.
|
|
| |||||
|
|
| |||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 0.12 | 3.894 | -0.52–34.4–44.5 | 0.13 | 4.122 | -23.4–27.2 42.3 |
|
| 0.15 | 3.926 | 1.6–35.0–45.6 | - | - | - |
|
| 0.40 | 4.060 | -1.9–35.6–48.0 | 0.67 | 3.507 | -23.3–28.1 43.3 |
|
| 0.60 | 4.271 | 2.3–35.1–47.5 | - | - | - |
|
| - | - | - | 0.13 | 3.225 | -28.5–28.1 38.8 |
|
| 0.32 | 3.236 | 48.5–4.6 18.0 | - | - | - |
|
| - | - | - | 0.11 | 2.935 | -31.6–28.9 34.3 |
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 0.09 | 3.847 | -23.0–27.7 44.2 | - | - | - |
|
| - | - | - | 0.68 | 2.829 | 15.0 12.8 0.4 |
|
| 0.72 | 3.332 | -23.1–28.3 45.9 | 0.16 | 3.130 | -1.8–36.7–50.5 |
|
| - | - | - | 0.22 | 3.723 | 2.8–37.6–52.7 |
|
| 0.11 | 3.222 | -27.6–28.1 42.0 | 0.37 | 3.036 | -40.5–8.9 38.2 |
|
| - | - | - | - | - | - |
|
| - | - | - | 0.44 | 3.062 | -42.8–10.2 37.4 |
Center of gravity coordinates (X, Y, Z) are in MNI space. ‘% volume’ is the percentage of voxels from each atlas region of interest that overlap with each cluster.
L = left.
R = right.
ATR = anterior thalamic radiation.
CST = corticospinal tract.
SLF = superior longitudinal fasciculus.
COG = center of gravity.
Fig 3Whole-brain fractional anisotropy and radial diffusivity results.
Fractional anisotropy results are shown in Panel A; the first row illustrates the large positive cluster in the right SLF (orange), the second row illustrates the negative cluster in the left CST/ATR/SLF, and the third row illustrates the positive cluster in bilateral CST in the brainstem. Radial diffusivity results are shown in Panel B; the first row shows the negative cluster in the left SLF, the second row shows the positive cluster in the ATR/CST, and the third row illustrates the negative cluster in the bilateral CST in the brainstem. The last row shows the negative cluster in the right ATR.