Cognitive impairment after focal brain lesions is better predicted by damage to structural than functional network hubs.
Adult
Brain
/ diagnostic imaging
Brain Injuries
/ pathology
Brain Mapping
Cerebral Cortex
/ pathology
Cognition
Cognition Disorders
/ pathology
Cognitive Dysfunction
/ diagnostic imaging
Female
Gray Matter
/ pathology
Humans
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
/ methods
Male
Nerve Net
/ physiopathology
Neural Pathways
/ physiopathology
Neuropsychological Tests
White Matter
/ pathology
Young Adult
brain networks
edge density
functional connectivity
participation coefficient
structural connectivity
Journal
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
ISSN: 1091-6490
Titre abrégé: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7505876
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 05 2021
11 05 2021
Historique:
entrez:
4
5
2021
pubmed:
5
5
2021
medline:
15
12
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Hubs are highly connected brain regions important for coordinating processing in brain networks. It is unclear, however, which measures of network "hubness" are most useful in identifying brain regions critical to human cognition. We tested how closely two measures of hubness-edge density and participation coefficient, derived from white and gray matter, respectively-were associated with general cognitive impairment after brain damage in two large cohorts of patients with focal brain lesions (N = 402 and 102, respectively) using cognitive tests spanning multiple cognitive domains. Lesions disrupting white matter regions with high edge density were associated with cognitive impairment, whereas lesions damaging gray matter regions with high participation coefficient had a weaker, less consistent association with cognitive outcomes. Similar results were observed with six other gray matter hubness measures. This suggests that damage to densely connected white matter regions is more cognitively impairing than similar damage to gray matter hubs, helping to explain interindividual differences in cognitive outcomes after brain damage.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33941692
pii: 2018784118
doi: 10.1073/pnas.2018784118
pmc: PMC8126860
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Subventions
Organisme : NIMH NIH HHS
ID : P50 MH094258
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIMH NIH HHS
ID : R01 MH122613
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIGMS NIH HHS
ID : T32 GM108540
Pays : United States
Organisme : NINDS NIH HHS
ID : R01 NS114405
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIMH NIH HHS
ID : R21 MH120441
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIH HHS
ID : S10 OD025025
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIMH NIH HHS
ID : T32 MH019113
Pays : United States
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare no competing interest.
Références
Trends Cogn Sci. 2009 Aug;13(8):354-9
pubmed: 19595625
J Stat Mech. 2005 Feb 1;2005(P02001):nihpa35573
pubmed: 18159217
Neuroimage. 2007 Aug 1;37(1):90-101
pubmed: 17560126
Stroke. 2018 Nov;49(11):2666-2673
pubmed: 30355190
PLoS One. 2009;4(4):e5226
pubmed: 19381298
Neurology. 2015 Apr 21;84(16):1685-92
pubmed: 25809303
J Neurol. 1996 Aug;243(8):599-604
pubmed: 8865027
Neuroimage. 2020 Apr 15;210:116589
pubmed: 32007498
Sci Data. 2015 Jul 07;2:150031
pubmed: 26175908
Phys Rev E Stat Nonlin Soft Matter Phys. 2005 Oct;72(4 Pt 2):046105
pubmed: 16383466
Pediatr Neurol. 2005 Sep;33(3):184-94
pubmed: 16139733
PLoS Biol. 2018 Apr 6;16(4):e2003993
pubmed: 29624578
PLoS Comput Biol. 2017 Jun 22;13(6):e1005550
pubmed: 28640803
J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 2020 Mar;40(3):611-621
pubmed: 30782059
Neuroimage. 2011 Sep 1;58(1):109-21
pubmed: 21722739
Hum Brain Mapp. 2008 Jul;29(7):802-9
pubmed: 18438885
Cell Rep. 2019 Sep 3;28(10):2527-2540.e9
pubmed: 31484066
Arch Neurol. 1992 Feb;49(2):137-43
pubmed: 1736845
Neuroimage. 2013 Oct 15;80:515-26
pubmed: 23623973
PLoS Comput Biol. 2009 Jun;5(6):e1000408
pubmed: 19521503
Intelligence. 2019 Sep-Oct;76:101376
pubmed: 31787788
Ann Neurol. 1999 Oct;46(4):568-78
pubmed: 10514093
Neuroimage. 2001 Aug;14(2):486-500
pubmed: 11467921
Neurology. 2018 Nov 13;91(20):e1838-e1850
pubmed: 30333158
Neuroimage. 2013 Oct 15;80:62-79
pubmed: 23684880
J Neurophysiol. 2012 Oct;108(8):2242-63
pubmed: 22832566
J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 2013;35(10):1048-59
pubmed: 24236952
Neuroimage. 2017 Oct 15;160:113-123
pubmed: 27919750
Brain. 2015 Jun;138(Pt 6):1696-709
pubmed: 25808370
J Neurophysiol. 2011 Nov;106(5):2322-45
pubmed: 21795627
Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2017 Feb;32(1):40-52
pubmed: 27789443
Neuron. 2013 Aug 21;79(4):798-813
pubmed: 23972601
J Neurosci. 2011 Nov 2;31(44):15775-86
pubmed: 22049421
Neuroimage. 2006 Jul 1;31(3):968-80
pubmed: 16530430
Neuroimage. 2007 Jan 1;34(1):144-55
pubmed: 17070705
Neuron. 2015 Mar 4;85(5):927-41
pubmed: 25741721
J Cogn Neurosci. 2012 Jun;24(6):1275-85
pubmed: 22401285
Cereb Cortex. 2016 Jan;26(1):288-303
pubmed: 25316338
Neuroimage. 2010 Sep;52(3):1059-69
pubmed: 19819337
Neuroimage. 1997 Jan;5(1):13-30
pubmed: 9038281
Neuroimage. 2004;23 Suppl 1:S208-19
pubmed: 15501092
J Neurosurg. 2016 Jun;124(6):1568-77
pubmed: 26613174
Neuroimage. 2015 Apr 1;109:402-17
pubmed: 25592996
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2001 Oct;82(10):1360-6
pubmed: 11588738
Neuroimage Clin. 2017 Feb 24;14:552-565
pubmed: 28337410
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2014 Oct 5;369(1653):
pubmed: 25180305
Front Hum Neurosci. 2014 Feb 11;8:51
pubmed: 24574993
Med Image Anal. 2008 Feb;12(1):26-41
pubmed: 17659998
Nat Hum Behav. 2018 Oct;2(10):765-777
pubmed: 30631825
PLoS Comput Biol. 2009 May;5(5):e1000395
pubmed: 19492086
Brain Connect. 2016 Sep;6(7):548-57
pubmed: 27345586
Nat Neurosci. 2014 May;17(5):652-60
pubmed: 24686784
Brain. 2014 Aug;137(Pt 8):2382-95
pubmed: 25057133
Front Neurosci. 2012 Oct 16;6:152
pubmed: 23087608
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014 Sep 30;111(39):14247-52
pubmed: 25225403
PLoS One. 2010 Apr 27;5(4):e10232
pubmed: 20436911
J Neurophysiol. 2011 Sep;106(3):1125-65
pubmed: 21653723
Magn Reson Med. 1996 Mar;35(3):346-55
pubmed: 8699946
Stroke. 2014 Mar;45(3):717-22
pubmed: 24523041