4.6 Article

Stress Impact on Resting State Brain Networks

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 8, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0066500

关键词

-

资金

  1. SwitchBox-FP7-HEALTH [259772-2]
  2. Fundacao para a Ciencia e Tecnologia (FCT, Portugal) [SFRH/BPD/33379/2008]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Resting state brain networks (RSNs) are spatially distributed large-scale networks, evidenced by resting state functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies. Importantly, RSNs are implicated in several relevant brain functions and present abnormal functional patterns in many neuropsychiatric disorders, for which stress exposure is an established risk factor. Yet, so far, little is known about the effect of stress in the architecture of RSNs, both in resting state conditions or during shift to task performance. Herein we assessed the architecture of the RSNs using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) in a cohort of participants exposed to prolonged stress (participants that had just finished their long period of preparation for the medical residence selection exam), and respective gender-and age-matched controls (medical students under normal academic activities). Analysis focused on the pattern of activity in resting state conditions and after deactivation. A volumetric estimation of the RSNs was also performed. Data shows that stressed participants displayed greater activation of the default mode (DMN), dorsal attention (DAN), ventral attention (VAN), sensorimotor (SMN), and primary visual (VN) networks than controls. Importantly, stressed participants also evidenced impairments in the deactivation of resting state-networks when compared to controls. These functional changes are paralleled by a constriction of the DMN that is in line with the pattern of brain atrophy observed after stress exposure. These results reveal that stress impacts on activation-deactivation pattern of RSNs, a finding that may underlie stress-induced changes in several dimensions of brain activity.

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

4.6
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