Article Figures & Data
Figures
- FIG 1.
A schematic illustration of the IHSPT probes of hemispheric and callosal WM integrity by measuring processing speed and latency in the articulation of words presented to the LVF and RVF in individuals with left-hemisphere language dominance and vice versa for right-hemisphere-dominant individuals. For individuals with left-language dominance (most), visual information presented to the RVF projects to the left primary visual cortex with access to primary language centers in the same hemisphere (blue), whereas visual information from the subject’s LVF projects to the contralateral (right) primary visual cortex and must then cross the midline to access core language centers in the left brain (red). A difference in latency between presentation and oral articulation of the word can be measured to tap interhemispheric processing speed.
- FIG 2.
Path diagrams illustrate the total (or entire) effect model (A) and the mediation model (B).19 The mediation model decomposes the total effect, c, into the direct effect, c’, and the indirect effect, ab = c–c’, where a is the independent-mediator effect and b is the mediator-outcome effect. The paths a, b, c, and c represent the regression coefficients.
- FIG 3.
Mediation analysis demonstrates significant indirect mediators (neighbor WM ROIs) in the relationships (A) between the genu of the CC and IHSPT performance including areas (yellow) of aIC, pIC, rIC, aCRL, sCR, pCRL, Cg, ChL, SLFL, and SFOF in healthy controls (upper row) and no area in patients with MTBI (lower row); (B) between the body of the CC and IHSPT performance including areas (green) of aICL, pIC, rICR, sCR, SLFL, and SFOFL in healthy controls (upper row) and aICR, sCRR, SLFL, and SFOFR in patients with MTBI (lower row); and (C) between the splenium of the CC and IHSPT performance including areas (purple) of aIC, pIC, rICR, aCRL, sCR, pCRL, ECR, ChR, SLFL, and SFOFL in healthy controls (upper row) and rICL, pCRL, CgL, and SLFL in patients with MTBI (lower row). Details are in the Online Supplemental Data.
- FIG 4.
TBSS results comparing diffusion measures between MTBI and healthy control groups. Clusters of voxels (red) demonstrating significantly lower FA, MK, AK, and RK in the MTBI group compared with the healthy control group (P < .05, family-wise error–corrected) are present diffusely across the entire WM. Increased MD, AD, RD, Da, and De⊥ are seen in mainly left-sided, WM regions including bCC, aICL, pICL, aCRL, sCRL, pCRL, ECL, CgL, SLFL, and SFOFL in the MTBI group. A heat map showing differences between groups is overlaid on the mean FA template and WM skeleton (green).
Tables
Characteristics of the patients and healthy controls
Patients with MTBI (n = 23) Healthy Controls (n = 17) Male/female 9:14 8:9 Age (mean) (yr) 36 (SD, 14) 34 (SD, 11) Education (mean) (yr) 16 (SD, 2) 17 (SD, 2) Time since injury (mean) (days) 18 (SD, 8) – Injury mechanism (No.) Hit by object 8 Fall 8 Car collision 4 Assault 1 Other 2 RPQ total score (mean) 23 (SD, 16) 6 (SD, 8) IHSPT score (mean) (range) (%) 5.8 (SD, 5.7) (0.1–25.6) 5.2 (SD, 3.1) (0.3–10.8) Note:—RPQ indicates Rivermead Postconcussion Symptoms Questionnaire; IHSPT; Interhemispheric Processing Speed Test.
Jump to section
Related Articles
Cited By...
- No citing articles found.