Focal left prefrontal lesions and cognitive impairment: A multivariate lesion-symptom mapping approach

Using predictive validity to compare associations between brain damage and behavior

Lesion-behavior mapping (LBM) provides a statistical map of the association between voxel-wise brain damage and individual differences in behavior. To understand whether two behaviors are mediated by damage to distinct regions, researchers often compare LBM weight outputs by either the Overlap method or the Correlation method. However, these methods lack statistical criteria to determine whether two LBM are distinct versus the same and are disconnected from a major goal of LBMs: predicting behavior from brain damage. Without such criteria, researchers may draw conclusions from numeric differences between LBMs that are irrelevant to predicting behavior. We developed and validated a predictive validity comparison method (PVC) that establishes a statistical criterion for comparing two LBMs using predictive accuracy: two LBMs are distinct if and only if they provide unique predictive power for the behaviors being assessed. We applied PVC to two lesion-behavior stroke data sets, demonstrating its utility for determining when behaviors arise from the same versus different lesion patterns. Using region-of-interest-based simulations derived from proportion damage from a large data set (n = 131), PVC accurately detected when behaviors were mediated by different regions (high sensitivity) versus the same region (high specificity). Both the Overlap method and Correlation method performed poorly on the simulated data. By objectively determining whether two behavioral deficits can be explained by single versus distinct patterns of brain damage, PVC provides a critical advance in establishing the brain bases of behavior. We have developed and released a GUI-driven web app to encourage widespread adoption.

The impact of etiology in lesion-symptom mapping - A direct comparison between tumor and stroke

INTRODUCTION

Lesion-symptom mapping is a key tool in understanding the relationship between brain structures and behavior. However, the behavioral consequences of lesions from different etiologies may vary because of how they affect brain tissue and how they are distributed. The inclusion of different etiologies would increase the statistical power but has been critically debated. Meanwhile, findings from lesion studies are a valuable resource for clinicians and used across different etiologies. Therefore, the main objective of the present study was to directly compare lesion-symptom maps for memory and language functions from two populations, a tumor versus a stroke population.

METHODS

Data from two different studies were combined. Both the brain tumor (N = 196) and stroke (N = 147) patient populations underwent neuropsychological testing and an MRI, pre-operatively for the tumor population and within three months after stroke. For this study, we selected two internationally widely used standardized cognitive tasks, the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test and the Verbal Fluency Test. We used a state-of-the-art machine learning-based, multivariate voxel-wise approach to produce lesion-symptom maps for these cognitive tasks for both populations separately and combined.

RESULTS

Our lesion-symptom mapping results for the separate patient populations largely followed the expected neuroanatomical pattern based on previous literature. Substantial differences in lesion distribution hindered direct comparison. Still, in brain areas with adequate coverage in both groups, considerable LSM differences between the two populations were present for both memory and fluency tasks. Post-hoc analyses of these locations confirmed that the cognitive consequences of focal brain damage varied between etiologies.

CONCLUSION

The differences in the lesion-symptom maps between the stroke and tumor population could partly be explained by differences in lesion volume and topography. Despite these methodological limitations, both the lesion-symptom mapping results and the post-hoc analyses confirmed that etiology matters when investigating the cognitive consequences of lesions with lesion-symptom mapping. Therefore, caution is advised with generalizing lesion-symptom results across etiologies.

Influences on cognitive outcomes in adult patients with gliomas: A systematic review

People with brain tumors, including those previously treated, are commonly affected by a range of neurocognitive impairments involving executive function, memory, attention, and social/emotional functioning. Several factors are postulated to underlie this relationship, but evidence relating to many of these factors is conflicting and does not fully explain the variation in cognitive outcomes seen in the literature and in clinical practice. To address this, we performed a systematic literature review to identify and describe the range of factors that can influence cognitive outcomes in adult patients with gliomas. A literature search was performed of Ovid MEDLINE, PsychINFO, and PsycTESTS from commencement until September 2021. Of 9,998 articles identified through the search strategy, and an additional 39 articles identified through other sources, 142 were included in our review. The results confirmed that multiple factors influence cognitive outcomes in patients with gliomas. The effects of tumor characteristics (including location) and treatments administered are some of the most studied variables but the evidence for these is conflicting, which may be the result of methodological and study population differences. Tumor location and laterality overall appear to influence cognitive outcomes, and detection of such an effect is contingent upon administration of appropriate cognitive tests. Surgery appears to have an overall initial deleterious effect on cognition with a recovery in most cases over several months. A large body of evidence supports the adverse effects of radiotherapy on cognition, but the role of chemotherapy is less clear. To contrast, baseline cognitive status appears to be a consistent factor that influences cognitive outcomes, with worse baseline cognition at diagnosis/pre-treatment correlated with worse long-term outcomes. Similarly, much evidence indicates that anti-epileptic drugs have a negative effect on cognition and genetics also appear to have a role. Evidence regarding the effect of age on cognitive outcomes in glioma patients is conflicting, and there is insufficient evidence for gender and fatigue. Cognitive reserve, brain reserve, socioeconomic status, and several other variables discussed in this review, and their influence on cognition and recovery, have not been well-studied in the context of gliomas and are areas for focus in future research.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42017072976.

Rule Perseveration during Task-Switching in Brain Tumor: A Severe Form of Task-Setting Impairment

It has been proposed that at least two distinct processes are engaged during task-switching: reconfiguration of the currently relevant task-set and interference resolution arising from the competing task-set. Whereas in healthy individuals the two are difficult to disentangle, their disruption is thought to cause different impairments in brain-damaged patients. Yet, the observed deficits are inconsistent across studies and do not allow drawing conclusions regarding their independence. Forty-one brain tumor patients were tested on a task-switching paradigm. We compared their performance between switch and repeat trials (switch cost) to assess rule reconfiguration, and between trials requiring the same response (congruent) and a different response for the two tasks (incongruent) to assess interference control. In line with previous studies, we found the greatest proportion of errors on incongruent trials, suggesting an interference control impairment. However, a closer look at the distribution of errors between two task rules revealed a rule perseveration impairment: Patients with high error rate on incongruent trials often applied only one task rule throughout the task and less frequently switched to the alternative one. Multivariate lesion-symptom mapping analysis unveiled the relationship between lesions localized in left orbitofrontal and posterior subcortical regions and perseveration scores, measured as absolute difference in accuracy between two task rules. This finding points to a more severe task-setting impairment, not reflected as a mere switching deficit, but instead as a difficulty in creating multiple stable task representations, in line with recent accounts of OFC functions suggesting its critical role in representing task states.

The Quest for Hemispheric Asymmetries Supporting and Predicting Executive Functioning

This narrative review addresses the neural bases of two executive functions: criterion setting, that is, the capacity to flexibly set up and select task rules and associations between stimuli, responses, and nonresponses, and monitoring, that is, the process of continuously evaluating whether task rules are being applied optimally. There is a documented tendency for criterion setting and monitoring to differentially recruit left and right lateral prefrontal regions and connected networks, respectively, above and beyond the specific task context. This model, known as the ROtman-Baycrest Battery to Investigate Attention (ROBBIA) model, initially sprung from extensive neuropsychological work led by Don Stuss. In subsequent years, multimodal lines of empirical investigation on both healthy individuals and patients with brain damage, coming from functional neuroimaging, EEG, neurostimulation, individual difference approaches, and, again, neuropsychology, so to "complete the circle," corroborated the functional mapping across the two hemispheres as predicted by the model. More recent electrophysiological evidence has further shown that hemispheric differences in intrinsic prefrontal dynamics are able to predict cognitive performance in tasks tapping these domain-general functions. These empirical contributions will be presented together with contrasting evidence, limits, and possible future directions to better fine-tune this model and extend its scope to new fields.