Cognitive control subprocess deficits and compensatory modulation mechanisms in patients with frontal lobe injury revealed by EEG markers: a basic study to guide brain stimulation.

BACKGROUND

Frontal lobe injury (FLI) is related to cognitive control impairments, but the influences of FLI on the internal subprocesses of cognitive control remain unclear.

AIMS

We sought to identify specific biomarkers for long-term dysfunction or compensatory modulation in different cognitive control subprocesses.

METHODS

A retrospective case-control study was conducted. Event-related potentials (ERP), oscillations and functional connectivity were used to analyse electroencephalography (EEG) data from 12 patients with unilateral frontal lobe injury (UFLI), 12 patients with bilateral frontal lobe injury (BFLI) and 26 healthy controls (HCs) during a Go/NoGo task, which included several subprocesses: perceptual processing, anticipatory preparation, conflict monitoring and response decision.

RESULTS

Compared with the HC group, N2 (the second negative peak in the averaged ERP waveform) latency, and frontal and parietal oscillations were decreased only in the BFLI group, whereas P3 (the third positive peak in the averaged ERP waveform) amplitudes and sensorimotor oscillations were decreased in both patient groups. The functional connectivity of the four subprocesses was as follows: alpha connections of posterior networks in the BFLI group were lower than in the HC and UFLI groups, and these alpha connections were negatively correlated with neuropsychological tests. Theta connections of the dorsal frontoparietal network in the bilateral hemispheres of the BFLI group were lower than in the HC and UFLI groups, and these connections in the uninjured hemisphere of the UFLI group were higher than in the HC group, which were negatively correlated with behavioural performances. Delta and theta connections of the midfrontal-related networks in the BFLI group were lower than in the HC group. Theta across-network connections in the HC group were higher than in the BFLI group but lower than in the UFLI group.

CONCLUSIONS

The enhancement of low-frequency connections reflects compensatory mechanisms. In contrast, alpha connections are the opposite, therefore revealing more abnormal neural activity and less compensatory connectivity as the severity of injury increases. The nodes of the above networks may serve as stimulating targets for early treatment to restore corresponding functions. EEG biomarkers can measure neuromodulation effects in heterogeneous patients.