Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Figure 1 Network topology as a function of dopaminergic state

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Figure 1 Network topology as a function of dopaminergic state"— Presentation transcript:

1 Figure 1 Network topology as a function of dopaminergic state
Figure 1 Network topology as a function of dopaminergic state. (A) Global mean participation coefficient ... Figure 1 Network topology as a function of dopaminergic state. (A) Global mean participation coefficient (B<sub>T</sub>) in controls (blue), Parkinson’s disease ON (green) and Parkinson’s disease OFF (red). P < (B) Force-directed plots comparing Parkinson's disease ON and OFF dopaminergic medication. Edges represent top 1% of connections in time averaged connectivity matrix and colours of nodes reflect predefined network identity of each region. (C) Cartographic profile comparing Parkinson’s disease OFF > Parkinson’s disease ON. Subjects were more integrated (i.e. rightward shift on the B<sub>T</sub> axis) in the OFF compared to the ON state. (D) Surface plot of regions with significantly increased participation (B<sub>T</sub>) during OFF state. COn = cingulo-opercular network; CPar = cingulo-parietal network; DAN = dorsal attention network; FPN = frontoparietal network; FTp = fronto-temporal network; PD = Parkinson’s disease; RSp = retrosplenial network; SMh = somatomotor hand network; SMm = somatomotor mouth network; VAN = ventral attention network; Subcort = subcortical network. Unless provided in the caption above, the following copyright applies to the content of this slide: © The Author(s) (2019). Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Guarantors of Brain. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model ( Brain, Volume 142, Issue 4, 18 March 2019, Pages 1024–1034, The content of this slide may be subject to copyright: please see the slide notes for details.

2 Figure 2 Relationship between network topology and motor severity
Figure 2 Relationship between network topology and motor severity. (A) Inverse relationship between cartographic ... Figure 2 Relationship between network topology and motor severity. (A) Inverse relationship between cartographic profile (Parkinson’s disease OFF > Parkinson’s disease ON) and UPDRS III (motor) severity (estimated in the dopaminergic OFF state): greater integration (i.e. rightward shift on the B<sub>T</sub> axis) was inversely correlated with motor severity. (B) Parcels with significant inverse correlation between B<sub>T</sub> (OFF > ON) and UPDRS III. FDR q ≤ 0.05. Unless provided in the caption above, the following copyright applies to the content of this slide: © The Author(s) (2019). Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Guarantors of Brain. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model ( Brain, Volume 142, Issue 4, 18 March 2019, Pages 1024–1034, The content of this slide may be subject to copyright: please see the slide notes for details.

3 Figure 3 Topological flexibility as a function of dopaminergic state
Figure 3 Topological flexibility as a function of dopaminergic state. Regions with increased topological flexibility ... Figure 3 Topological flexibility as a function of dopaminergic state. Regions with increased topological flexibility (increased frequency of modular switching) in the OFF > ON dopaminergic state. FDR q ≤ No regions showed a significant decrease in flexibility in the OFF state. Unless provided in the caption above, the following copyright applies to the content of this slide: © The Author(s) (2019). Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Guarantors of Brain. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model ( Brain, Volume 142, Issue 4, 18 March 2019, Pages 1024–1034, The content of this slide may be subject to copyright: please see the slide notes for details.

4 Figure 4 Relationship between network topology and neurocognitive reserve. (A) Relationship between cartographic ... Figure 4 Relationship between network topology and neurocognitive reserve. (A) Relationship between cartographic profile (Parkinson’s disease OFF > Parkinson’s disease ON) and interaction between grey matter volume and education level (NART). FDR q ≤ Subjects with greater NART and grey matter scores were more integrated (i.e. rightward shift on the B<sub>T</sub> axis) in the OFF compared to the ON state. (B) Regions with significant relationship between B<sub>T</sub> (OFF > ON) and the interactions between brain (mean grey matter) and cognitive (NART) reserve, estimated using a linear mixed effects model. FDR q ≤ GLM = general linear model. Unless provided in the caption above, the following copyright applies to the content of this slide: © The Author(s) (2019). Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Guarantors of Brain. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model ( Brain, Volume 142, Issue 4, 18 March 2019, Pages 1024–1034, The content of this slide may be subject to copyright: please see the slide notes for details.


Download ppt "Figure 1 Network topology as a function of dopaminergic state"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google