4.6 Article

Regional electroencephalogram (EEG) spectral power and hemispheric coherence in young adults born at extremely low birth weight

期刊

CLINICAL NEUROPHYSIOLOGY
卷 120, 期 2, 页码 231-238

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinph.2008.11.004

关键词

Early life events; Extreme prematurity; Extremely low birth weight; EEG spectral power and coherence

资金

  1. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC)
  2. Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC)
  3. Canadian Institutes of Health and Research (CIHR) [MOP42536]
  4. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) [RO1HD40219]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: We examined the effects of extremely low birth weight (ELBW < 1000 g) on adult brain functioning. Methods: We measured baseline regional EEG spectral power and hemispheric coherence in a cohort of 154 (M age = 23 years) non-impaired young adults who were born at ELBW (n = 71: M birth weight = 874 g, M gestation age = 27.5 weeks) and in a control group of full-terns adults born at normal birth weight (NBW; n = 83). Results: ELBW adults exhibited significantly more power in the low EEG frequency bands (delta and theta) and less in the high EEG frequency bands (alpha and beta) than the NBW adults. This relative difference in the amount of high to low-frequency power was especially salient in the frontal regions. ELBW adults also exhibited significantly more short-distance EEG coherence in the right hemisphere compared to the NBW adults. Conclusions: Our results suggest that even among ELBW survivors without impairments, adverse events early in life may result in subtle neurological abnormalities. Significance: This study provides a unique EEG profile of young adult survivors of ELBW showing that maturational delays of the brain may persist into late adolescence and emerging adulthood. (C) 2008 International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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