4.5 Article

Cross-modal connectivity effects in age-related hearing loss

期刊

NEUROBIOLOGY OF AGING
卷 111, 期 -, 页码 1-13

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2021.09.024

关键词

Hearing loss; Graph theory; Functional connectivity; Structural connectivity; Brain tractography; Visual cortex

资金

  1. Amplifon SpA

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Age-related sensorineural hearing loss is closely associated with brain functional and structural changes, especially in the visual subnetwork. This study analyzed this correlation using a multimodal connectomic approach and found functional repurposing of visual cortical centers in the presence of hearing loss.
Age-related sensorineural hearing loss (HL) leads to localized brain changes in the primary auditory cortex, long-range functional alterations, and is considered a risk factor for dementia. Nonhuman studies have repeatedly highlighted cross-modal brain plasticity in sensorial brain networks other than those primarily involved in the peripheral damage, thus in this study, the possible cortical alterations associated with HL have been analyzed using a whole-brain multimodal connectomic approach. Fifty-two HL and 30 normal hearing participants were examined in a 3T MRI study along with audiological and neurological assessments. Between-regions functional connectivity and whole-brain probabilistic tractography were calculated in a connectome-based manner and graph theory was used to obtain low-dimensional features for the analysis of brain connectivity at global and local levels. The HL condition was associated with a different functional organization of the visual subnetwork as revealed by a significant increase in global efficiency, density, and clustering coefficient. These functional effects were mirrored by similar (but more subtle) structural effects suggesting that a functional repurposing of visual cortical centers occurs to compensate for age-related loss of hearing abilities. (C) 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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