4.7 Article

Propofol attenuates low-frequency fluctuations of resting-state fMRI BOLD signal in the anterior frontal cortex upon loss of consciousness

期刊

NEUROIMAGE
卷 147, 期 -, 页码 295-301

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.12.043

关键词

Resting-state fMRI; Spontaneous neural activity; Fractional amplitude of low-frequency fluctuation (fALFF); Propofol sedation; Loss of consciousness

资金

  1. National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health [R01-GM103894, T32 GM89586]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent studies indicate that spontaneous low-frequency fluctuations (LFFs) of resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging (rs-fMRI) blood oxygen level-dependent (BOLD) signals are driven by the slow ( < 0.1 Hz) modulation of ongoing neuronal activity synchronized locally and across remote brain regions. How regional LFFs of the BOLD fMRI signal are altered during anesthetic-induced alteration of consciousness is not well understood. Using rs-fMRI in 15 healthy participants, we show that during administration of propofol to achieve loss of behavioral responsiveness indexing unconsciousness, the fractional amplitude of LFF (fALFF index) was reduced in comparison to wakeful baseline in the anterior frontal regions, temporal pole, hippocampus, parahippocampal gyros, and amygdala. Such changes were absent in large areas of the motor, parietal, and sensory cortices. During light sedation characterized by the preservation of overt responsiveness and therefore consciousness, fALFF was reduced in the subcortical areas, temporal pole, medial orbital frontal cortex, cingulate cortex, and cerebellum. Between light sedation and deep sedation, fALFF was reduced primarily in the medial and dorsolateral frontal areas. The preferential reduction of LFFs in the anterior frontal regions is consistent with frontal to sensory-motor cortical disconnection and may contribute to the suppression of consciousness during general anesthesia.

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