4.2 Article

Functional Connectivity Variations in Mild Cognitive Impairment: Associations with Cognitive Function

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S1355617711001299

关键词

Mild cognitive impairment (MCI); Resting-state fMRI; Functional connectivity; Posterior cingulate cortex; Memory; Basal ganglia; Striatum

资金

  1. National Institute on Aging [R01AG17917]
  2. Illinois Department of Public Health
  3. Marsha K. Dowd Philanthropic Fund
  4. NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON AGING [R01AG017917] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Participants with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) have a higher likelihood of developing Alzheimer's disease (AD) compared to those without MCI, and functional magnetic resonance neuroimaging (fMRI) used with MCI participants may prove to be an important tool in identifying early biomarkers for AD. We tested the hypothesis that functional connectivity differences exist between older adults with and without MCI using resting-state fMRI. Data were collected on over 200 participants of the Rush Memory and Aging Project, a community-based, clinical-pathological cohort study of aging. From the cohort, 40 participants were identified as having MCI, and were compared to 40 demographically matched participants without cognitive impairment. MCI participants showed lesser functional connectivity between the posterior cingulate cortex and right and left orbital frontal, right middle frontal, left putamen, right caudate, left superior temporal, and right posterior cingulate regions; and greater connectivity with right inferior frontal, left fusiform, left rectal, and left precentral regions. Furthermore, in an alternate sample of 113, connectivity values in regions of difference correlated with episodic memory and processing speed. Results suggest functional connectivity values in regions of difference are associated with cognitive function and may reflect the presence of AD pathology and increased risk of developing clinical AD. (JINS, 2012, 18, 39-48)

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

4.2
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