Back

Spatial neglect after subcortical stroke: sometimes a cortico-cortical disconnection syndrome

Sperber, C.; Rosenzopf, H.; Wawrzyniak, M.; Klingbeil, J.; Saur, D.; Karnath, H.-O.

2024-04-28 neuroscience
10.1101/2024.04.25.591066 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Background and ObjectivesSpatial neglect is commonly attributed to lesions of a predominantly right-hemispheric cortical network. Although spatial neglect was also repeatedly observed after lesions to the basal ganglia and the thalamus, many anatomical network models omit these structures. We investigated if disruption of functional or structural connectivity can explain spatial neglect in subcortical stroke. MethodsWe retrospectively investigated data of first-ever, acute stroke patients with right-sided lesions of the basal ganglia (n = 27) or the thalamus (n = 16). Based on lesion location, we estimated i) functional connectivity via lesion-network mapping with normative resting state fMRI data, ii) structural white matter disconnection and iii) tract-wise disconnection of association fibres based on normative tractography data to investigate the association of spatial neglect and disconnection measures. ResultsApart from very small clusters of functional disconnection observed in inferior/middle frontal regions in lesion-network symptom mapping for basal ganglia lesions, our analyses found no evidence of functional or structural subcortico-cortical disconnection. Instead, the multivariate consideration of lesion load to several association fibres predicted the occurrence of spatial neglect (p = 0.0048; AUC = 0.76), which were the superior longitudinal fasciculus, inferior occipitofrontal fasciculus, superior occipitofrontal fasciculus, and the uncinate fasciculus. ConclusionDisconnection of long (cortico-cortical) association fibres can explain spatial neglect in subcortical stroke. Like the competing theory of remote cortical hypoperfusion, this mechanism does not require the assumption of a genuine role for subcortical grey matter structures in spatial neglect.

Matching journals

The top 5 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.