Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2015 Jul 15;10(7):e0131759.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0131759. eCollection 2015.

Evolution of EEG Motor Rhythms after Spinal Cord Injury: A Longitudinal Study

Eduardo López-Larraz  1 , Luis Montesano  1 , Ángel Gil-Agudo  2 , Javier Minguez  3 , Antonio Oliviero  4
Affiliations

Evolution of EEG Motor Rhythms after Spinal Cord Injury: A Longitudinal Study

Eduardo López-Larraz et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Spinal cord injury (SCI) does not only produce a lack of sensory and motor function caudal to the level of injury, but it also leads to a progressive brain reorganization. Chronic SCI patients attempting to move their affected limbs present a significant reduction of brain activation in the motor cortex, which has been linked to the deafferentation. The aim of this work is to study the evolution of the motor-related brain activity during the first months after SCI. Eighteen subacute SCI patients were recruited to participate in bi-weekly experimental sessions during at least two months. Their EEG was recorded to analyze the temporal evolution of the event-related desynchronization (ERD) over the motor cortex, both during motor attempt and motor imagery of their paralyzed hands. The results show that the α and β ERD evolution after SCI is negatively correlated with the clinical progression of the patients during the first months after the injury. This work provides the first longitudinal study of the event-related desynchronization during the subacute phase of spinal cord injury. Furthermore, our findings reveal a strong association between the ERD changes and the clinical evolution of the patients. These results help to better understand the brain transformation after SCI, which is important to characterize the neuroplasticity mechanisms involved after this lesion and may lead to new strategies for rehabilitation and motor restoration of these patients.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: One of the authors (JM) is also employed by a commercial company (Bit&Brain Technologies SL). The aim of the company is unrelated to the scope of this study. This company had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. This does not alter the authors’ adherence to all the PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. ERD Evolution of patient P02.
ERD maps corresponding to motor attempt (left panel) and motor imagery (right panel). The different rows correspond to the 8 sessions, which were registered between 5 and 9 months after the lesion. The three columns of each panel correspond to the ERD of the left hemisphere, midline and right hemisphere. The x-axes of each map range from -3 to 3 seconds with respect to the attempt/imagery cue presentation, while the y-axes range from 1 to 50 Hz. The α and β regions of interest obtained on the first session for each channel are drawn on each ERD map.
Fig 2
Fig 2. Linear α and β ERD trends obtained for participant P02 in the left hemisphere.
Left and right panels correspond to motor attempt and imagery, respectively. Left and right within each panel correspond to α and β trends. The black dots of each subplot represent the average ERD obtained in the eight sessions recorded with this patient. The x-axes represent the time in days since injury, while the y-axes correspond to ERD magnitude.
Fig 3
Fig 3. Analyses of grouped ERD trends.
Analysis of the ERD trends grouping subjects by clinical outcome (A) and by initial ERD (B). Left/right part of panels A and B correspond to MA/MI, respectively. The x-axes of the figures indicate the corresponding groups, while the y-axes correspond to the averaged trend of the fitted regression lines.
Fig 4
Fig 4. Initial ERD values of subjects grouped by clinical outcome.
Left/right part of the figure corresponds to MA/MI, respectively. The x-axis indicates the group, while the y-axis shows the ERD percentage.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Wyndaele M, Wyndaele JJ. Incidence, prevalence and epidemiology of spinal cord injury: What learns a worldwide literature survey? Spinal cord. 2006;44(9):523–529. 10.1038/sj.sc.3101893 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Turner JA, Lee JS, Martinez O, Medlin AL, Schandler SL, Cohen MJ. Somatotopy of the motor cortex after long-term spinal cord injury or amputation. IEEE Trans on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering. 2001;9(2):154–160. 10.1109/7333.928575 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Cramer SC, Lastra L, Lacourse MG, Cohen MJ. Brain motor system function after chronic, complete spinal cord injury. Brain. 2005;128(12):2941–2950. 10.1093/brain/awh648 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Müller-Putz GR, Zimmermann D, Graimann B, Nestinger K, Korisek G, Pfurtscheller G. Event-related beta EEG-changes during passive and attempted foot movements in paraplegic patients. Brain Research. 2007;1137:84–91. 10.1016/j.brainres.2006.12.052 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Castro A, Díaz F, Sumich A. Long-term neuroplasticity in spinal cord injury patients: A study on movement-related brain potentials. International journal of psychophysiology. 2013;87(2):205–214. 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2013.01.012 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

Grants and funding

This work was supported by Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación (Spanish Government), Project HYPER-CSD2009-00067: ELL, LM, AGA; Ministerio de Economía y competitividad (Spanish Government), Project DPI2011-25892: ELL, LM; and Diputación General de Aragón (Spain), DGA-FSE (grupo T04): ELL, LM. Bit&Brain Technologies SL, provided support in the form of salaries for author JM, but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the “author contributions” section.