4.2 Article

Memory and functional brain differences in a national sample of US veterans with Gulf War Illness

期刊

PSYCHIATRY RESEARCH-NEUROIMAGING
卷 250, 期 -, 页码 33-41

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.pscychresns.2016.03.004

关键词

Gulf War Illness; Associative memory; fMRI; Encoding

资金

  1. IDIQ [VA549-P-0027]
  2. Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Dallas, TX, U.S.
  3. U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command [DAMD17-01-1-0741]
  4. National Center for Research Resources (NCRR) of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) [UL1RR024982]
  5. NIH Roadmap for Medical Research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Roughly 26-32% of U.S. veterans who served in the 1991 Persian Gulf War report suffering from chronic health problems. Memory complaints are regularly reported by ill Gulf War veterans (GWV), but limited data verify their complaints. This study investigated episodic memory and brain function in a nationally representative sample of GWV, using a face-name memory task and functional magnetic resonance imaging during encoding. A syndrome classification system was used to subdivide ill GWV into the three major Gulf War Illness syndrome types, impaired cognition (GWV-1), confusion ataxia (GWV-2), and central pain (GWV-3). Memory and brain function of ill GWV were contrasted to deployed and non deployed well GWV controls (GWV-C). Ill GWV exhibited impaired memory function relative to GWV-C but the patterns of functional brain differences varied. Brain activation differentiated the GWV-C from the ill GWV. The different syndrome types also differed from one another in several brain regions. Additionally, the current study was the first to observe differences in brain function between deployed and nondeployed GWV-C. These results provide (1) evidence of memory impairment in ill GWV and differentiate the syndrome types at a functional neurobiological level, and (2) the role of deployment in the war on brain function. (c) 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. 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

4.2
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