4.7 Article

Theta-gamma coupling and ordering information: a stable brain-behavior relationship across cognitive tasks and clinical conditions

期刊

NEUROPSYCHOPHARMACOLOGY
卷 45, 期 12, 页码 2038-2047

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/s41386-020-0759-z

关键词

-

资金

  1. Health Canada
  2. Chagnon Family
  3. Canada Foundation for Innovation [25861]
  4. Canadian Institutes of Health Research [244041]
  5. Ontario Ministry of Research and Innovation [ER14-10-004]
  6. Joan and Clifford Hatch Foundation
  7. CIHR
  8. NIH
  9. Brain Canada
  10. Temerty Family Foundation through the CAMH Foundation
  11. Temerty Family Foundation through the Campbell Research Institute
  12. Ontario Mental Health Foundation (OMHF)
  13. Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)
  14. National Institutes of Mental Health (NIMH)
  15. Temerty Family
  16. Grant Family
  17. Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) Foundation
  18. Campbell Institute
  19. Hoffman LaRoche
  20. Vielight Inc.
  21. U.S. National Institutes of Health
  22. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute
  23. Canadian Institutes of Health Research
  24. Ontario Brain Institute
  25. Alzheimer's Association
  26. Brain and Behavior Foundation (NARSAD)
  27. BrightFocus Foundation
  28. Weston Brain Institute
  29. Canadian Centre for Ageing and Brain Health Innovation
  30. CAMH foundation
  31. University of Toronto
  32. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI)
  33. US National Institute of Health (NIH)
  34. Capital Solution Design LLC
  35. HAPPYneuron
  36. Eli Lilly (NIH)
  37. Pfizer (NIH)
  38. Canada Foundation for Innovation
  39. Canada Research Chair
  40. Centre for Aging and Brain Health Innovation
  41. National Institutes of Health
  42. Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care
  43. Ontario Ministry of Research and Innovation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ordering of information is a critical component that underlies several cognitive functions. Prefrontal theta-gamma coupling (TGC) is a neurophysiologic measure associated with ordering of information during the performance of a working memory task (N-back). Little is known about the relationship between TGC and ordering during other cognitive tasks or whether the relationship between TGC and ordering of information is independent of clinical condition. This study aimed to determine whether the relationship between TGC and ordering of information exists independent of a task and its timing, and whether this relationship is the same in different clinical conditions. A total of 311 participants were assessed using a neuropsychological battery that included the N-back during which TGC was measured; two other tasks that also require ordering; and three tests that do not require ordering. All non-N-back tasks were completed several days separate from the N-back by a mean interval (SD) of 5.14 (8.03). Our three hypotheses were that TGC during the N-back task would be associated with performance on N-Back and other cognitive tasks that also require ordering, but not with performance on cognitive tasks that do not require ordering; and that these relationships will be independent of clinical diagnosis. Multivariate linear regression results show that TGC was associated with performance on the ordering tasks but not the non-ordering tasks. In addition, there was no interaction between TGC and diagnosis. Our study is the first to demonstrate that TGC is a neurophysiologic measure of ordering information across several cognitive tasks that require ordering, and this TGC-ordering relationship is stable over time even when several days separate the measurement of TGC and the performance of the ordering tasks. Our results also show that this relationship is independent of clinical diagnosis, supporting the brain-behavior nature of this relationship. These results highlight the importance of TGC in ordering-based cognition, and suggest that TGC could be a valid target for interventions that aim to enhance this function across cognitive tasks and clinical conditions.

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