4.7 Article

Coalescence and Fragmentation of Cortical Networks during Focal Seizures

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE
卷 30, 期 30, 页码 10076-10085

出版社

SOC NEUROSCIENCE
DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.6309-09.2010

关键词

-

资金

  1. Burroughs Wellcome Fund
  2. National Science Foundation [IIS-0643995, IOB 0645886]
  3. Office of Naval Research [N00014-06-1-0096]
  4. National Eye Institute [R01EY017658]
  5. National Institute on Drug Abuse [R01NS063249]
  6. Howard Hughes Medical Institute
  7. Klingenstein Foundation
  8. American Epilepsy Foundation
  9. Rappaport Foundation
  10. National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke [R01 NS062092]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Epileptic seizures reflect a pathological brain state characterized by specific clinical and electrical manifestations. The proposed mechanisms are heterogeneous but united by the supposition that epileptic activity is hypersynchronous across multiple scales, yet principled and quantitative analyses of seizure dynamics across space and throughout the entire ictal period are rare. To more completely explore spatiotemporal interactions during seizures, we examined electrocorticogram data from a population of male and female human patients with epilepsy and from these data constructed dynamic network representations using statistically robust measures. We found that these networks evolved through a distinct topological progression during the seizure. Surprisingly, the overall synchronization changed only weakly, whereas the topology changed dramatically in organization. A large subnetwork dominated the network architecture at seizure onset and preceding termination but, between, fractured into smaller groups. Common network characteristics appeared consistently for a population of subjects, and, for each subject, similar networks appeared from seizure to seizure. These results suggest that, at the macroscopic spatial scale, epilepsy is not so much a manifestation of hypersynchrony but instead of network reorganization.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据