↓ Skip to main content

Dedifferentiation Does Not Account for Hyperconnectivity after Traumatic Brain Injury

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neurology, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
57 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Dedifferentiation Does Not Account for Hyperconnectivity after Traumatic Brain Injury
Published in
Frontiers in Neurology, July 2017
DOI 10.3389/fneur.2017.00297
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rachel Anne Bernier, Arnab Roy, Umesh Meyyappan Venkatesan, Emily C. Grossner, Einat K. Brenner, Frank Gerard Hillary

Abstract

Changes in functional network connectivity following traumatic brain injury (TBI) have received increasing attention in recent neuroimaging literature. This study sought to understand how disrupted systems adapt to injury during resting and goal-directed brain states. Hyperconnectivity has been a common finding, and dedifferentiation (or loss of segregation of networks) is one possible explanation for this finding. We hypothesized that individuals with TBI would show dedifferentiation of networks (as noted in other clinical populations) and these effects would be associated with cognitive dysfunction. Graph theory was implemented to examine functional connectivity during periods of task and rest in 19 individuals with moderate/severe TBI and 14 healthy controls (HCs). Using a functional brain atlas derived from 83 functional imaging studies, graph theory was used to examine network dynamics and determine whether dedifferentiation accounts for changes in connectivity. Regions of interest were assigned to one of three groups: task-positive, default mode, or other networks. Relationships between these metrics were then compared with performance on neuropsychological tests. Hyperconnectivity in TBI was most commonly observed as increased within-network connectivity. Network strengths within networks that showed differences between TBI and HCs were correlated with performance on five neuropsychological tests typically sensitive to deficits commonly reported in TBI. Hyperconnectivity within the default mode network (DMN) during task was associated with better performance on Digit Span Backward, a measure of working memory [R(2)(18) = 0.28, p = 0.02]. In other words, increased differentiation of networks during task was associated with better working memory. Hyperconnectivity within the task-positive network during rest was not associated with behavior. Negative correlation weights were not associated with behavior. The primary hypothesis that hyperconnectivity occurs through increased segregation of networks, rather than dedifferentiation, was not supported. Instead, enhanced connectivity post injury was observed within network. Results suggest that the relationship between increased connectivity and cognitive functioning may be both state (rest or task) and network dependent. High-cost network hubs were identical for both rest and task, and cost was negatively associated with performance on measures of psychomotor speed and set-shifting.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 57 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 14%
Student > Bachelor 6 11%
Student > Master 5 9%
Other 3 5%
Other 8 14%
Unknown 17 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 15 26%
Psychology 11 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 7%
Computer Science 1 2%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 2%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 21 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 July 2017.
All research outputs
#14,070,926
of 22,985,065 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurology
#5,500
of 11,867 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#152,508
of 283,562 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurology
#84
of 201 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,985,065 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,867 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 283,562 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 201 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.