Differential Impact of Brain Network Efficiency on Poststroke Motor and Attentional Deficits.
attention
connectivity
motor
stroke
structural MRI
Journal
Stroke
ISSN: 1524-4628
Titre abrégé: Stroke
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0235266
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 2023
04 2023
Historique:
medline:
29
3
2023
pubmed:
28
2
2023
entrez:
27
2
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Most studies on stroke have been designed to examine one deficit in isolation; yet, survivors often have multiple deficits in different domains. While the mechanisms underlying multiple-domain deficits remain poorly understood, network-theoretical methods may open new avenues of understanding. Fifty subacute stroke patients (7±3days poststroke) underwent diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging and a battery of clinical tests of motor and cognitive functions. We defined indices of impairment in strength, dexterity, and attention. We also computed imaging-based probabilistic tractography and whole-brain connectomes. To efficiently integrate inputs from different sources, brain networks rely on a rich-club of a few hub nodes. Lesions harm efficiency, particularly when they target the rich-club. Overlaying individual lesion masks onto the tractograms enabled us to split the connectomes into their affected and unaffected parts and associate them to impairment. We computed efficiency of the unaffected connectome and found it was more strongly correlated to impairment in strength, dexterity, and attention than efficiency of the total connectome. The magnitude of the correlation between efficiency and impairment followed the order attention>dexterity ≈ strength (strength: | Attentional impairment is more sensitive to disruption of coordinated networks between brain regions than motor impairment, which is sensitive to disruption of localized networks. Providing more accurate reflections of actually functioning parts of the network enables the incorporation of information about the impact of brain lesions on connectomics contributing to a better understanding of underlying stroke mechanisms.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Most studies on stroke have been designed to examine one deficit in isolation; yet, survivors often have multiple deficits in different domains. While the mechanisms underlying multiple-domain deficits remain poorly understood, network-theoretical methods may open new avenues of understanding.
METHODS
Fifty subacute stroke patients (7±3days poststroke) underwent diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging and a battery of clinical tests of motor and cognitive functions. We defined indices of impairment in strength, dexterity, and attention. We also computed imaging-based probabilistic tractography and whole-brain connectomes. To efficiently integrate inputs from different sources, brain networks rely on a rich-club of a few hub nodes. Lesions harm efficiency, particularly when they target the rich-club. Overlaying individual lesion masks onto the tractograms enabled us to split the connectomes into their affected and unaffected parts and associate them to impairment.
RESULTS
We computed efficiency of the unaffected connectome and found it was more strongly correlated to impairment in strength, dexterity, and attention than efficiency of the total connectome. The magnitude of the correlation between efficiency and impairment followed the order attention>dexterity ≈ strength (strength: |
CONCLUSIONS
Attentional impairment is more sensitive to disruption of coordinated networks between brain regions than motor impairment, which is sensitive to disruption of localized networks. Providing more accurate reflections of actually functioning parts of the network enables the incorporation of information about the impact of brain lesions on connectomics contributing to a better understanding of underlying stroke mechanisms.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36846963
doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.122.040001
pmc: PMC10662579
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
955-963Références
Magn Reson Med. 2008 Aug;60(2):439-48
pubmed: 18666109
Neuroimage. 2010 Oct 15;53(1):1-15
pubmed: 20547229
Nature. 1998 Jun 4;393(6684):440-2
pubmed: 9623998
Nature. 1999 Oct 21;401(6755):788-91
pubmed: 10548103
Brain. 2021 Aug 17;144(7):2107-2119
pubmed: 34237143
Sci Data. 2018 Feb 20;5:180011
pubmed: 29461514
IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2015 Jan;34(1):246-57
pubmed: 25167548
J Cogn Neurosci. 2015 Sep;27(9):1801-10
pubmed: 25941870
Neuroimage. 2004;23 Suppl 1:S208-19
pubmed: 15501092
Int J Surg. 2014 Dec;12(12):1500-24
pubmed: 25046751
Lancet Neurol. 2014 Feb;13(2):206-16
pubmed: 24457190
Exp Neurol. 2017 Jan;287(Pt 3):384-394
pubmed: 26874223
Am J Occup Ther. 1985 Jun;39(6):386-91
pubmed: 3160243
Neuroimage. 2014 Dec;103:411-426
pubmed: 25109526
J Hand Surg Am. 1984 Mar;9(2):222-6
pubmed: 6715829
Phys Rev Lett. 2001 Nov 5;87(19):198701
pubmed: 11690461
Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2011 Jun;26(4):322-30
pubmed: 21558283
Neuroscientist. 2006 Dec;12(6):512-23
pubmed: 17079517
J Appl Psychol. 1948 Jun;32(3):234-47
pubmed: 18867059
Nat Rev Neurosci. 2009 Mar;10(3):186-98
pubmed: 19190637
Stroke. 2021 Jun;52(6):2115-2124
pubmed: 33902299
J Consult Psychol. 1955 Oct;19(5):393-4
pubmed: 13263471
Neuroimage. 2019 Nov 15;202:116137
pubmed: 31473352
Front Neuroinform. 2014 Feb 21;8:8
pubmed: 24600385
Stroke. 2019 Oct;50(10):2768-2774
pubmed: 31743084
Neuroimage. 2012 Sep;62(3):1924-38
pubmed: 22705374
Psychol Methods. 2008 Mar;13(1):19-30
pubmed: 18331151
PLoS One. 2015 Dec 16;10(12):e0145118
pubmed: 26672989
J Neurosci. 2011 Nov 2;31(44):15775-86
pubmed: 22049421
Stroke. 2019 Oct;50(10):2761-2767
pubmed: 31510905
Neuroimage. 2010 Sep;52(3):1059-69
pubmed: 19819337
Clin Neurophysiol. 2019 Jul;130(7):1098-1124
pubmed: 31082786
Cortex. 2018 Apr;101:44-59
pubmed: 29414460
J Neurosci. 2013 Sep 4;33(36):14489-500
pubmed: 24005300