Open AccessBehavioral and neurophysiological abnormalities during cued continuous performance tasks in patients with mild traumatic brain injury
Author(s) -
Zhao Weixiang,
Wu Ruhong,
Wang Suhong,
Qi Haihui,
Qian Yitao,
Wang Suinuan
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
brain and behavior
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.915
H-Index - 41
ISSN - 2162-3279
DOI - 10.1002/brb3.966
Subject(s) - traumatic brain injury , neuropsychology , continuous performance task , cued speech , psychology , audiology , event related potential , electroencephalography , stimulus (psychology) , recall , cognition , medicine , neuroscience , psychiatry , cognitive psychology
Objective This study's aim was to investigate the features and neural mechanisms of sustained attention in patients with mild traumatic brain injury ( mTBI ) by comparing and analyzing neuropsychological, behavioral, event‐related potentials, and event‐related desynchronization and synchronization between mTBI patients and healthy controls. Methods Twenty mTBI patients with mTBI and 20 healthy controls underwent the Mini‐Mental State Examination ( MMSE ) and a cued continuous performance task ( AX ‐ CPT ). Neuropsychological, behavioral, and electroencephalogram ( EEG ) data were collected and analyzed. Results There were significant differences between the mTBI group and the control group in their MMSE total scores, attention, and calculation, but there were no significant differences in orientation, memory, recall, and verbal scores. There were significant differences between the mTBI group and the control group in hitting the number, reaction time, and the number of errors of omission, but there were no significant differences in the number of false errors. The amplitude of Go‐N2 and Nogo‐N2 was significantly smaller for the mTBI group than that for the control group. The amplitude of Go‐P3 was significantly smaller for the mTBI group than that for the control group, but not for the amplitude of Nogo‐P3. The Go‐α ERS were significantly less for the mTBI group than for the control group during the 0–200 ms after the stimulus onset. The Go‐α ERD and Nogo‐α ERD were significantly less for the mTBI group than for the control group during the 600–1,000 ms after the stimulus onset. The Go‐β ERS were significantly less for the mTBI group than for the control group during the 200–400 ms after the stimulus onset. There were no significant differences in the Nogo‐α ERS and Nogo‐β ERD / ERS between the mTBI group and the control group. Conclusion Patients with mTBI exhibited impairments in sustained attention and conflict monitoring, while response inhibition may have been spared.