4.7 Article

Network Analysis of Auditory Hallucinations in Nonpsychotic Individuals

期刊

HUMAN BRAIN MAPPING
卷 35, 期 4, 页码 1436-1445

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/hbm.22264

关键词

auditory hallucination; graph theory; schizophrenia; psychosis; resting state; fMRI; betweenness centrality; degree; default mode network; hub

资金

  1. NWO/ZonMW (Dutch Scientific Research Organization) Clinical Fellowship [40-00703-97-270]
  2. NWO/ZonMW Innovation Impulse (VIDI) [017.106.301]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Auditory verbal hallucinations (AVH) are a cardinal feature of schizophrenia and can severely disrupt behavior and decrease quality of life. Identification of areas with high functional connectivity (so-called hub regions) that are associated with the predisposition to hallucinate may provide potential targets for neuromodulation in the treatment of AVH. Methods: Resting-state fMRI scans during which no hallucinations had occurred were acquired from 29 nonpsychotic individuals with AVH and 29 matched controls. These nonpsychotic individuals with AVH provide the opportunity to study AVH without several confounds associated with schizophrenia, such as antipsychotic medication use and other symptoms related to the illness. Hub regions were identified by assessing weighted connectivity strength and betweenness centrality across groups using a permutation analysis. Results: Nonpsychotic individuals with AVH exhibited increased functioning as hub regions in the temporal cortices and the posterior cingulate/precuneus, which is an important area in the default mode network (DMN), compared to the nonhallucinating controls. In addition, the right inferior temporal gyrus, left paracentral lobule and right amygdala were less important as a hub region in the AVH group. Conclusions: These results suggest that the predisposition to hallucinate may be related to aberrant functioning of the DMN and the auditory cortices. Hum Brain Mapp 35:1436-1445, 2014. (c) 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据