4.3 Article

Cortico-muscular coherence as an index of fatigue in multiple sclerosis

期刊

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS JOURNAL
卷 19, 期 3, 页码 334-343

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/1352458512452921

关键词

Cortical thickness and volumetry; electroencephalography (EEG); fatigue in multiple sclerosis (MS); magnetic resonance imaging (MRI); surface electromyography (EMG)

资金

  1. FISM Fondazione Italiana Sclerosi Multipla [Cod.20101R/38, Cod.2011/R/32]
  2. Royal Society International Joint Project [2010/R1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Highly common in multiple sclerosis (MS), fatigue severely impacts patients' daily lives. Previous findings of altered connectivity patterns led to the hypothesis that the distortion of functional connections within the brain-muscle circuit plays a crucial pathogenic role. Objective: The objective of this paper is to identify markers sensitive to fatigue in multiple sclerosis. Methods: Structural (magnetic resonance imaging with assessment of thalamic volume and cortical thickness of the primary sensorinnotor areas) and functional (cortico-muscular coherence (CMC) from simultaneous electroencephaloand surface electromyographic recordings during a weak handgrip task) measures were used on 20 mildly disabled MS patients (relapsing remitting course, Expanded Disability Status Scale score 2) who were recruited in two fatigue-dependent groups according to the Modified Fatigue Index Scale (MFIS) score. Results: The two groups were similar in terms of demographic, clinical and imaging features, as well as task execution accuracy and weariness. In the absence of any fatigue-dependent brain and muscular oscillatory activity alterations, CMC worked at higher frequencies as fatigue increased, explaining 67% of MFIS variance (p=.002). Conclusion: Brain-muscle functional connectivity emerged as a sensitive marker of phenomena related to the origin of MS fatigue, impacting central-peripheral communication well before the appearance of any impairment in the communicating nodes.

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

4.3
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