Back

Variations in the frequency and amplitude of resting-state EEG and fMRI signals in normal adults: The effects of age and sex

Zhong, X. Z.; Chen, J.

2020-10-04 physiology
10.1101/2020.10.02.323840 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Frequency and amplitude features of both resting-state electroencephalography (EEG) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) are crucial metrics that reveal patterns of brain health in aging. However, the association between these two modalities is still unclear. In this study, we examined the peak frequency and standard deviation of both modalities in a dataset comprising healthy young (35.5{+/-}3.4 years, N=134) and healthy old (66.9{+/-}4.8 years, N=51) adults. Both age and sex effects were examined using non-parametric analyses of variance (ANOVA) and Tukeys Honest Significant Difference (HSD) post-hoc comparisons in the cortical and subcortical regions. We found that, with age, EEG power decreases in the low frequency band (1-12 Hz) but increases in the high frequency band (12-30 Hz). Moreover, EEG frequency generally shifts up with aging. For fMRI, fluctuation amplitude is lower but fluctuation frequency is higher in older adults, but in a manner that depends on the fMRI frequency range. Furthermore, there are significant sex effects in EEG power (female > male), but the sex effect is negligible for EEG frequency as well as fMRI power and frequency. We also found that the fMRI-EEG power ratio is higher in young adults than old adults. However, the mediation analysis shows the association between EEG and fMRI parameters in aging is negligible. This is the first study that examines both power and frequency of both resting EEG and fMRI signals in the same cohort. In conclusion, both fMRI and EEG signals reflect age-related and sex-related brain differences, but they likely associate with different origins.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.