Open AccessEarly motor network connectivity after stroke: An interplay of general reorganization and state‐specific compensation
Author(s) -
Paul Theresa,
Hensel Lukas,
Rehme Anne K.,
Tscherpel Caroline,
Eickhoff Simon B.,
Fink Gereon R.,
Grefkes Christian,
Volz Lukas J.
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
human brain mapping
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.005
H-Index - 191
eISSN - 1097-0193
pISSN - 1065-9471
DOI - 10.1002/hbm.25612
Subject(s) - neuroscience , functional connectivity , functional magnetic resonance imaging , psychology , premotor cortex , resting state fmri , stroke (engine) , neuroplasticity , default mode network , physical medicine and rehabilitation , medicine , dorsum , mechanical engineering , engineering , anatomy
Motor recovery after stroke relies on functional reorganization of the motor network, which is commonly assessed via functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI)‐based resting‐state functional connectivity (rsFC) or task‐related effective connectivity (trEC) . Measures of either connectivity mode have been shown to successfully explain motor impairment post‐stroke, posing the question whether motor impairment is more closely reflected by rsFC or trEC. Moreover, highly similar changes in ipsilesional and interhemispheric motor network connectivity have been reported for both rsFC and trEC after stroke, suggesting that altered rsFC and trEC may capture similar aspects of information integration in the motor network reflecting principle, state‐independent mechanisms of network reorganization rather than state‐specific compensation strategies. To address this question, we conducted the first direct comparison of rsFC and trEC in a sample of early subacute stroke patients ( n = 26, included on average 7.3 days post‐stroke). We found that both rsFC and trEC explained motor impairment across patients, stressing the clinical potential of fMRI‐based connectivity. Importantly, intrahemispheric connectivity between ipsilesional M1 and premotor areas depended on the activation state, whereas interhemispheric connectivity between homologs was state‐independent. From a mechanistic perspective, our results may thus arise from two distinct aspects of motor network plasticity: task‐specific compensation within the ipsilesional hemisphere and a more fundamental form of reorganization between hemispheres.