David Yen-Ting Chen1,2, Yi-Tien Li1,3, Chien-Yuan Eddy Lin4,5, Chi-Jeng Chen1, and Ying-Chi Tseng1
1Department of Radiology, Shuang-Ho Hospital, Taipei Medical University, New Taipei City, Taiwan, 2Brain and Consciousness Research Center, Taipei Medical University, Taipei City, Taiwan, 3Institute of Biomedical Engineering, National Taiwan University, Taipei City, Taiwan, 4GE Healthcare, Taipei City, Taiwan, 5MR Advanced Application and Research Center, GE Healthcare, Beijing City, China, People's Republic of
Synopsis
Mild traumatic brain injury (MTBI) may cause disruption of default mode
network (DMN) in patients. We found differences in both resting state DMN
connectivity and task-related deactivation between MTBI patients and healthy
controls. Although no significant within-network difference was found in the
DMN connectivity between patients and controls, there was increased
extra-network connection to the left inferior
frontal gyrus in the patients. Significantly more profound task-related
deactivation was found in the patients, especially in bilateral IPCs. Increased
task-related deactivation may imply the patients need more attention on
performing the WM tasks. Furthermore, significant correlation between resting
state connectivity and task-related deactivation of DMN was found in healthy
controls and this rest-task correlation was disrupted in the patients.
Purpose
Mild traumatic brain injury (MTBI) is
a substantial public health problem, representing 75% of traumatic brain injury
cases [1]. Difficulty in working memory (WM) and attention is frequently
reported in patients with TBI [2]. The default mode network (DMN), typically
comprises the posterior cingulate cortex (PCC), inferior parietal lobule (IPL),
and medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) nodes, is a well-established network that
is active at rest and suppressed during tasks that require attention and
decision making [3]. Several functional MRI (fMRI) studies revealed disruption
of resting state DMN connectivity and alterations of brain activation during WM
task in MTBI patients, but very few studies addressed on the task-related
deactivation in MTBI [4]. In this study, we investigated the MTBI effect on the
DMN, by means of both resting state functional connectivity and task-related
deactivation, in a group of MTBI patients and further evaluated the rest-task
relationship in these patients.
Materials & Methods
This study was approved by the local research ethics committee. All
participants provided written informed consent. 36 patients (male/female:
11/25; age: 33.6±8.6; 22-49 years) fulfilling
the MTBI criteria by the American Congress of Rehabilitative Medicine [5] and 24 control
subjects (male/female: 7/17; age: 34.5±8.9; 21-49 years) were
recruited. All participants underwent resting state fMRI and task fMRI (1-back verbal
working memory task; block
design; 30 trials) sequentially in a 3T MRI scanner (Discovery
MR750; GE Healthcare, Milwaukee, Wis) within 1 month
after injury. The fMRI scans used T2*-weigthed echo-planar imaging with the
following parameters: TR/TE, 3000/35 msec; flip angle, 90°; FOV, 230 mm
2
; matrix size, 64 x 64; slice thickness, 3 mm; 40 slices; intersection gap, 1 mm;
320 brain volumes for resting state fMRI; 70 brain volumes for task fMRI). Resting
state DMN connectivity was estimated by a seed-based correlation method [7]
with the seed defined by a 5-mm diameter sphere centered at PCC (table 1) [6]. The
brain activity (represented by beta values) during the 1-back WM condition was
obtained by using the general linear model approach in SPM8 package. The areas showing
negative beta values were considered as deactivation regions. ROI analysis was
carried at the core regions of the DMN, including PCC, IPL and mPFC (table 1) [8,9]
within the functional connectivity maps and 1-back brain activity maps. We used
one sample t test for the first level group analysis, two sample t test for the
second level group comparison and Pearson’s correlation coefficient for
correlation analysis in the study.
Results
The resting state DMN connectivity in MTBI patients and normal controls
were presented in the first two rows of Figure 1. Voxel wise group comparison indicates
that the patients had increased connectivity to the left inferior frontal gyrus
compared to the normal controls (Figure 1B). However, ROI analysis of the
connectivity within the PCC, MPFC and bilateral IPCs revealed no significant
difference between patients and healthy controls. Figure 2 shows that the brains
deactivate predominantly in the DMN regions during 1-back WM condition both in
the patients and healthy controls. The patients had more pround deactivation
compared to the healthy controls by visual comparison. ROI analysis confirmed
that the patients had more deactivation in right IPL (p = 0.047) and left IPL
(p = 0.00012). Correlation analysis revealed that there was significant
correlation (r = -0.638, p = 0.00079) between the mean connectivity and the
mean deactivation within the 4 DMN ROIs in healthy controls, while no correlation was found in the MTBI
patients (r = 0.143, p = 0.405).
Disscussions
In the study, we found differences in both resting state DMN connectivity
and task-related deactivation between MTBI patients and healthy controls.
Although no significant within-network difference was found in the DMN connectivity
between patients and controls, there was increased extra-network connection to
the left inferior frontal gyrus in the patients.
Significantly more profound task-related deactivation was found in the patients,
especially in bilateral IPCs. Increased task-related deactivation may imply the
patients need more attention on performing the WM tasks. Furthermore,
significant correlation between resting state connectivity and task-related
deactivation of DMN was found in healthy controls and this rest-task
correlation was disrupted in the patients.
Acknowledgements
No acknowledgement found.References
1. Sosin, et al. Brain Inj. 1996;10(1):47-54.
2. Bohnen, et al. Neurosurgery. 1992;30(5):692-695.
3. Gusnard, et al. Nat Rev Neurosci 2001;2(10):685-694.
4. McDonald, et al. Brain Imaging Behav. 2012
Jun;6(2):193-207.
5. Kay, et al. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 1993;8(3):86-87.
6. Greicius MD, et al. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA.
100:253-258.
7. Biswal, et al. Magnetic resonance in
medicine.1995; 34:537-541.
8. Gorges, et al. Brain connectivity. 2013;
3.3:265-272.
9. Zhang, et al. Nature Reviews Neurology. 2010;
6.1:15-28.