Different functional connectivity and network topology in behavioral variant of frontotemporal dementia and Alzheimer’s disease: an EEG study

Abstract We investigated whether the functional connectivity and network topology in 69 Alzheimer’s disease (AD), 48 behavioral variant of frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD) patients and 64 individuals with subjective cognitive decline (SCD) are different using resting-state electroencephalography (EEG...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Neurobiology of aging 2016-06, Vol.42, p.150-162
Hauptverfasser: Yu, Meichen, Gouw, Alida A, Hillebrand, Arjan, Tijms, Betty M, Stam, Cornelis Jan, van Straaten, Elisabeth CW, Pijnenburg, Yolande AL
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Abstract We investigated whether the functional connectivity and network topology in 69 Alzheimer’s disease (AD), 48 behavioral variant of frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD) patients and 64 individuals with subjective cognitive decline (SCD) are different using resting-state electroencephalography (EEG) recordings. Functional connectivity between all pairs of EEG channels was assessed using the Phase Lag Index (PLI). We subsequently calculated PLI-weighted networks, from which minimum spanning trees (MSTs) were constructed. Finally, we investigated the hierarchical clustering organization of the MSTs. Functional connectivity analysis showed frequency-dependent results: in the delta band, bvFTD showed highest whole-brain PLI; in the theta band, the whole-brain PLI in AD was higher than that in bvFTD; in the alpha band, AD showed lower whole-brain PLI compared with bvFTD and SCD. The MST results indicate that frontal networks appear to be selectively involved in bvFTD against the background of preserved global efficiency, whereas parietal and occipital loss of network organization in AD is accompanied by global efficiency loss. Our findings suggest different pathophysiological mechanisms in these two separate neurodegenerative disorders.
ISSN:0197-4580
1558-1497
DOI:10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2016.03.018