Why the study?
This study evaluated brain functional connectivity to elucidate prospective markers of mild cognitive impairment.
Does fNIRS-measured brain functional connectivity differ between patients with mild cognitive impairment and healthy controls?
Does fNIRS-measured brain functional connectivity differ between patients with mild cognitive impairment and healthy controls?
fNIRS reveals distinct patterns of brain functional connectivity in MCI patients compared to healthy controls, suggesting its potential as a prospective marker for neurodegenerative diseases.
fNIRS connectivity differences in MCI may support noninvasive detection; leaves open validation as a marker for neurodegenerative disease.
This study examines brain functional connectivity in both cognitively normal seniors and patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) to elucidate prospective markers of MCI. A homemade four‐channel functional near‐infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) system was employed to measure hemodynamic responses in the subjects' prefrontal cortex during a resting state, an oddball task, a 1‐back task, and a verbal fluency task. Brain functional connectivity was calculated as the Pearson correlation coefficients between fNIRS channels. The results show that during the verbal fluency task, while the healthy control (HC) group presents a significantly stronger inter‐hemispheric connectivity compared to intra‐hemispheric connectivity, there is no difference between the inter‐ and intra‐hemispheric connectivity in the MCI group. In addition, a comparison between the MCI and HC connectivity reveals that the MCI group has a statistically higher right and inter‐hemispheric connectivity during the resting state, but a significantly lower left and inter‐hemispheric connectivity during the verbal fluency test. These findings demonstrate the potential of fNIRS to study brain functional connectivity in neurodegenerative diseases.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nguyen et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: