Advertisement

Brain Topography

, Volume 31, Issue 4, pp 708–719 | Cite as

Alteration and Role of Interhemispheric and Intrahemispheric Connectivity in Motor Network After Stroke

  • Jungsoo Lee
  • Eunhee Park
  • Ahee Lee
  • Won Hyuk Chang
  • Dae-Shik Kim
  • Yun-Hee Kim
Original Paper
  • 72 Downloads

Abstract

This study investigated local and global changes in the motor network using longitudinal resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging (rs-fMRI). Motor impairment was measured in 81 stroke patients using Fugl-Meyer assessment on the same day as rs-fMRI acquisition at both 2 weeks and 3 months post-stroke. The relationships between network measures and motor function scores were assessed. With regard to local connectivity, interhemispheric connectivity was noticeably altered at each time point. Interhemispheric connectivity was also related to residual motor function and improvement in motor function. The anterior intraparietal sulcus and other well-known primary and secondary motor-related regions played important roles in motor function. Changes in global connectivity according to stroke type and initial severity were investigated. In global connectivity, interhemispheric connectivity was disrupted at 2 weeks post-stroke regardless of stroke type and initial severity. During the recovery period, interhemispheric connectivity recovered well in patients with hemorrhagic stroke or low severity. In contrast, there were no significant between-group and within-group alterations in intrahemispheric connectivity. Intrahemispheric connectivity of the inferior frontal cortex (IFC) exhibited opposite alterations compared to other connections. There were no differences between groups in IFC connectivity alterations; however, decreasing ipsilesional IFC connectivity and contralesional IFC during recovery were noticeable in patients with mild to moderate impairments and patients with severe impairments, respectively. These results may be helpful in understanding the network changes that occur after stroke and could have important implications for treatment strategy development in future studies.

Keywords

Stroke Functional connectivity Interhemispheric connectivity Intrahemispheric connectivity Inferior frontal cortex Anterior intraparietal sulcus 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by a National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) Grant funded by the Korean government (MSIP, NRF-2017R1A2A1A05000730; MSIT, NRF-2017M3A9G5083690; NRF-2017R1D1A1B03034109).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that this research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

10548_2018_644_MOESM1_ESM.docx (3 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 3092 KB)

References

  1. Bledowski C, Prvulovic D, Goebel R, Zanella FE, Linden DE (2004) Attentional systems in target and distractor processing: a combined ERP and fMRI study. Neuroimage 22:530–540CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Buetefisch CM (2015) Role of the contralesional hemisphere in post-stroke recovery of upper extremity motor function. Front Neurol 6:214CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Bullmore E, Sporns O (2012) The economy of brain network organization. Nat Rev Neurosci 13:336–349CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Buma FE, Lindeman E, Ramsey NF, Kwakkel G (2010) Functional neuroimaging studies of early upper limb recovery after stroke: a systematic review of the literature. Neurorehabilit Neural Repair 24:589–608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carey LM et al (2013) Beyond the lesion: neuroimaging foundations for post-stroke recovery. Future Neurol 8:507–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carter AR et al (2010) Resting interhemispheric functional magnetic resonance imaging connectivity predicts performance after stroke. Ann Neurol 67:365–375.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ana.21905 PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Chen X et al (2015) An ischemic stroke model of nonhuman primates for remote lesion studies: a behavioral and neuroimaging investigation. Restor Neurol Neurosci 33:131–142PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Corbetta M, Shulman GL (2002) Control of goal-directed and stimulus-driven attention in the brain. Nat Rev Neurosci 3:201–215CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Corbetta M, Patel G, Shulman GL (2008) The reorienting system of the human brain: from environment to theory of mind. Neuron 58:306–324CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Davare M, Montague K, Olivier E, Rothwell JC, Lemon RN (2009) Ventral premotor to primary motor cortical interactions during object-driven grasp in humans. Cortex 45:1050–1057CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Davare M, Kraskov A, Rothwell JC, Lemon RN (2011) Interactions between areas of the cortical grasping network. Curr Opin Neurobiol 21:565–570CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Deco G, Tononi G, Boly M, Kringelbach ML (2015) Rethinking segregation and integration: contributions of whole-brain modelling. Nat Rev Neurosci 16:430–439CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Dodd KC, Nair VA, Prabhakaran V (2017) Role of the contralesional vs. Ipsilesional hemisphere in stroke recovery. Front Hum Neurosci 11:469CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Duncan PW, Goldstein LB, Horner RD, Landsman PB, Samsa GP, Matchar DB (1994) Similar motor recovery of upper and lower extremities after stroke. Stroke 25:1181–1188CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Ehrsson HH, Fagergren A, Forssberg H (2001) Differential fronto-parietal activation depending on force used in a precision grip task: an fMRI study. J Neurophysiol 85:2613–2623CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Fugl-Meyer AR, Jääskö L, Leyman I, Olsson S, Steglind S (1974) The post-stroke hemiplegic patient. 1. a method for evaluation of physical performance. Scand J Rehabil Med 7:13–31Google Scholar
  17. Gratton C, Nomura EM, Pérez F, D’Esposito M (2012) Focal brain lesions to critical locations cause widespread disruption of the modular organization of the brain. J Cogn Neurosci 24:1275–1285CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. He BJ, Shulman GL, Snyder AZ, Corbetta M (2007a) The role of impaired neuronal communication in neurological disorders. Curr Opin Neurol 20:655–660CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. He BJ, Snyder AZ, Vincent JL, Epstein A, Shulman GL, Corbetta M (2007b) Breakdown of functional connectivity in frontoparietal networks underlies behavioral deficits in spatial neglect. Neuron 53:905–918CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Honey CJ, Sporns O (2008) Dynamical consequences of lesions in cortical networks. Hum Brain Mapp 29:802–809.  https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.20579 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Koch G et al (2010) In vivo definition of parieto-motor connections involved in planning of grasping movements. Neuroimage 51:300–312CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Lee J, Park E, Lee A, Chang WH, Kim DS, Kim YH (2017) Recovery-related indicators of motor network plasticity according to impairment severity after stroke. Eur J Neurol 24:1290–1299.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ene.13377 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Linden DE, Prvulovic D, Formisano E, Völlinger M, Zanella FE, Goebel R, Dierks T (1999) The functional neuroanatomy of target detection: an fMRI study of visual and auditory oddball tasks. Cereb Cortex 9:815–823CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Olivier E, Davare M, Andres M, Fadiga L (2007) Precision grasping in humans: from motor control to cognition. Curr Opin Neurobiol 17:644–648CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Paolucci S et al (2003) Functional outcome of ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke patients after inpatient rehabilitation: a matched comparison. Stroke 34:2861–2865CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Park C-h, Chang WH, Ohn SH, Kim ST, Bang OY, Pascual-Leone A, Kim Y-H (2011) Longitudinal changes of resting-state functional connectivity during motor recovery after stroke. Stroke 42:1357–1362CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. Perna R, Temple J (2015) Rehabilitation outcomes: ischemic versus hemorrhagic strokes. Behav Neurol 2015:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rehme AK, Grefkes C (2013) Cerebral network disorders after stroke: evidence from imaging-based connectivity analyses of active and resting brain states in humans. J Physiol 591:17–31CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Rehme AK, Fink GR, von Cramon DY, Grefkes C (2010) The role of the contralesional motor cortex for motor recovery in the early days after stroke assessed with longitudinal FMRI. Cereb Cortex 21:756–768CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Rehme AK, Eickhoff SB, Rottschy C, Fink GR, Grefkes C (2012) Activation likelihood estimation meta-analysis of motor-related neural activity after stroke. Neuroimage 59:2771–2782CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Reichenbach A, Bresciani J-P, Peer A, Bülthoff HH, Thielscher A (2010) Contributions of the PPC to online control of visually guided reaching movements assessed with fMRI-guided TMS. Cereb Cortex 21:1602–1612CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. Schaechter JD, Perdue KL, Wang R (2008) Structural damage to the corticospinal tract correlates with bilateral sensorimotor cortex reorganization in stroke patients. Neuroimage 39:1370–1382CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Schepers VP, Ketelaar M, Visser-Meily AJ, de Groot V, Twisk JW, Lindeman E (2008) Functional recovery differs between ischaemic and haemorrhagic stroke patients. J Rehabil Med 40:487–489CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Schulz R et al (2015) Parietofrontal motor pathways and their association with motor function after stroke. Brain 138:1949–1960CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Siegel JS et al (2016) Disruptions of network connectivity predict impairment in multiple behavioral domains after stroke. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 113:E4367–E4376CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. Sporns O (2013) Network attributes for segregation and integration in the human brain. Curr Opin Neurobiol 23:162–171CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Stinear CM, Barber PA, Smale PR, Coxon JP, Fleming MK, Byblow WD (2007) Functional potential in chronic stroke patients depends on corticospinal tract integrity. Brain 130:170–180CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Tononi G, Sporns O, Edelman GM (1994) A measure for brain complexity: relating functional segregation and integration in the nervous system. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 91:5033–5037CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. Tunik E, Frey SH, Grafton ST (2005) Virtual lesions of the anterior intraparietal area disrupt goal-dependent on-line adjustments of grasp. Nat Neurosci 8:505–511CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. van Meer MP et al (2012) Extent of bilateral neuronal network reorganization and functional recovery in relation to stroke severity. J Neurosci 32:4495–4507CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Wang L et al (2010) Dynamic functional reorganization of the motor execution network after stroke. Brain 133:1224–1238.  https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awq043 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Ward NS et al (2006) Motor system activation after subcortical stroke depends on corticospinal system integrity. Brain 129:809–819CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. Westlake KP et al (2012) Resting state alpha-band functional connectivity and recovery after stroke. Exp Neurol 237:160–169CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, Center for Prevention and Rehabilitation, Heart Vascular Stroke Institute, Samsung Medical CenterSungkyunkwan University School of MedicineSeoulRepublic of Korea
  2. 2.Department of Physical and Rehabilitation MedicineKyungpook National University Medical CenterDaeguRepublic of Korea
  3. 3.Department of Health Sciences and Technology, Department of Medical Device Management & Research, SAIHSTSungkyunkwan UniversitySeoulRepublic of Korea
  4. 4.School of Electrical EngineeringKorea Advanced Institute of Science and TechnologyDaejeonRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations