4.5 Article

Default mode network interference in mild traumatic brain injury - A pilot resting state study

期刊

BRAIN RESEARCH
卷 1537, 期 -, 页码 201-215

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.brainres.2013.08.034

关键词

Resting state fMRI; Mild traumatic brain injury; Working memory; Default mode network

资金

  1. DOD [W81XWH-08-1-0725]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study we investigated the functional connectivity in 23 Mild TBI (mTBI) patients with and without memory complaints using resting state fMRI in the sub-acute stage of injury as well as a group of control participants. Results indicate that mTBI patients with memory complaints performed significantly worse than patients without memory complaints on tests assessing memory from the Automated Neuropsychological Assessment Metrics (ANAM). Altered functional connectivity was observed between the three groups between the default mode network (DMN) and the nodes of the task positive network (TPN). Altered functional connectivity was also observed between both the TPN and DMN and nodes associated with the Salience Network (SN). Following mTBI there is a reduction in anti-correlated networks for both those with and without memory complaints for the DMN, but only a reduction in the anti-correlated network in mTBI patients with memory complaints for the TPN. Furthermore, an increased functional connectivity between the TPN and SN appears to be associated with reduced performance on memory assessments. Overall the results suggest that a disruption in the segregation of the DMN and the TPN at rest may be mediated through both a direct pathway of increased PC between various nodes of the TPN and DMN, and through an indirect pathway that links the TPN and DMN through nodes of the SN. This disruption between networks may cause a detrimental impact on memory functioning following mTBI, supporting the Default Mode Interference Hypothesis in the context of mTBI related memory deficits. (C) 2013 Elsevier B.V. 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