Frontiers in Neurology (Nov 2022)
Resting-state functional connectivity for determining outcomes in upper extremity function after stroke: A functional near-infrared spectroscopy study
Abstract
ObjectiveFunctional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) is a non-invasive and promising tool to map the brain functional networks in stroke recovery. Our study mainly aimed to use fNIRS to detect the different patterns of resting-state functional connectivity (RSFC) in subacute stroke patients with different degrees of upper extremity motor impairment defined by Fugl-Meyer motor assessment of upper extremity (FMA-UE). The second aim was to investigate the association between FMA-UE scores and fNIRS-RSFC among different regions of interest (ROIs) in stroke patients.MethodsForty-nine subacute (2 weeks−6 months) stroke patients with subcortical lesions were enrolled and were classified into three groups based on FMA-UE scores: mild impairment (n = 17), moderate impairment (n = 13), and severe impairment (n = 19). All patients received FMA-UE assessment and 10-min resting-state fNIRS monitoring. The fNIRS signals were recorded over seven ROIs: bilateral dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), middle prefrontal cortex (MPFC), bilateral primary motor cortex (M1), and bilateral primary somatosensory cortex (S1). Functional connectivity (FC) was calculated by correlation coefficients between each channel and each ROI pair. To reveal the comprehensive differences in FC among three groups, we compared FC on the group level and ROI level. In addition, to determine the associations between FMA-UE scores and RSFC among different ROIs, Spearman's correlation analyses were performed with a significance threshold of p < 0.05. For easy comparison, we defined the left hemisphere as the ipsilesional hemisphere and flipped the lesional right hemisphere in MATLAB R2013b.ResultsFor the group-level comparison, the one-way ANOVA and post-hoc t-tests (mild vs. moderate; mild vs. severe; moderate vs. severe) showed that there was a significant difference among three groups (F = 3.42, p = 0.04) and the group-averaged FC in the mild group (0.64 ± 0.14) was significantly higher than that in the severe group (0.53 ± 0.14, p = 0.013). However, there were no significant differences between the mild and moderate group (MD ± SE = 0.05 ± 0.05, p = 0.35) and between the moderate and severe group (MD ± SE = 0.07 ± 0.05, p = 0.16). For the ROI-level comparison, the severe group had significantly lower FC of ipsilesional DLPFC–ipsilesional M1 [p = 0.015, false discovery rate (FDR)-corrected] and ipsilesional DLPFC–contralesional M1 (p = 0.035, FDR-corrected) than those in the mild group. Moreover, the result of Spearman's correlation analyses showed that there were significant correlations between FMA-UE scores and FC of the ipsilesional DLPFC–ipsilesional M1 (r = 0.430, p = 0.002), ipsilesional DLPFC–contralesional M1 (r = 0.388, p = 0.006), ipsilesional DLPFC–MPFC (r = 0.365, p = 0.01), and ipsilesional DLPFC–contralesional DLPFC (r = 0.330, p = 0.021).ConclusionOur findings indicate that different degrees of post-stroke upper extremity impairment reflect different RSFC patterns, mainly in the connection between DLPFC and bilateral M1. The association between FMA-UE scores and the FC of ipsilesional DLPFC-associated ROIs suggests that the ipsilesional DLPFC may play an important role in motor-related plasticity. These findings can help us better understand the neurophysiological mechanisms of upper extremity motor impairment and recovery in subacute stroke patients from different perspectives. Furthermore, it sheds light on the ipsilesional DLPFC–bilateral M1 as a possible neuromodulation target.
Keywords
