Figure 1 Network topology as a function of dopaminergic state Figure 1 Network topology as a function of dopaminergic state. (A) Global mean participation coefficient ... Figure 1 Network topology as a function of dopaminergic state. (A) Global mean participation coefficient (B<sub>T</sub>) in controls (blue), Parkinson’s disease ON (green) and Parkinson’s disease OFF (red). P < 0.001. (B) Force-directed plots comparing Parkinson's disease ON and OFF dopaminergic medication. Edges represent top 1% of connections in time averaged connectivity matrix and colours of nodes reflect predefined network identity of each region. (C) Cartographic profile comparing Parkinson’s disease OFF > Parkinson’s disease ON. Subjects were more integrated (i.e. rightward shift on the B<sub>T</sub> axis) in the OFF compared to the ON state. (D) Surface plot of regions with significantly increased participation (B<sub>T</sub>) during OFF state. COn = cingulo-opercular network; CPar = cingulo-parietal network; DAN = dorsal attention network; FPN = frontoparietal network; FTp = fronto-temporal network; PD = Parkinson’s disease; RSp = retrosplenial network; SMh = somatomotor hand network; SMm = somatomotor mouth network; VAN = ventral attention network; Subcort = subcortical network. Unless provided in the caption above, the following copyright applies to the content of this slide: © The Author(s) (2019). Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Guarantors of Brain. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.comThis article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model) Brain, Volume 142, Issue 4, 18 March 2019, Pages 1024–1034, https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awz034 The content of this slide may be subject to copyright: please see the slide notes for details.
Figure 2 Relationship between network topology and motor severity Figure 2 Relationship between network topology and motor severity. (A) Inverse relationship between cartographic ... Figure 2 Relationship between network topology and motor severity. (A) Inverse relationship between cartographic profile (Parkinson’s disease OFF > Parkinson’s disease ON) and UPDRS III (motor) severity (estimated in the dopaminergic OFF state): greater integration (i.e. rightward shift on the B<sub>T</sub> axis) was inversely correlated with motor severity. (B) Parcels with significant inverse correlation between B<sub>T</sub> (OFF > ON) and UPDRS III. FDR q ≤ 0.05. Unless provided in the caption above, the following copyright applies to the content of this slide: © The Author(s) (2019). Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Guarantors of Brain. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.comThis article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model) Brain, Volume 142, Issue 4, 18 March 2019, Pages 1024–1034, https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awz034 The content of this slide may be subject to copyright: please see the slide notes for details.
Figure 3 Topological flexibility as a function of dopaminergic state Figure 3 Topological flexibility as a function of dopaminergic state. Regions with increased topological flexibility ... Figure 3 Topological flexibility as a function of dopaminergic state. Regions with increased topological flexibility (increased frequency of modular switching) in the OFF > ON dopaminergic state. FDR q ≤ 0.05. No regions showed a significant decrease in flexibility in the OFF state. Unless provided in the caption above, the following copyright applies to the content of this slide: © The Author(s) (2019). Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Guarantors of Brain. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.comThis article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model) Brain, Volume 142, Issue 4, 18 March 2019, Pages 1024–1034, https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awz034 The content of this slide may be subject to copyright: please see the slide notes for details.
Figure 4 Relationship between network topology and neurocognitive reserve. (A) Relationship between cartographic ... Figure 4 Relationship between network topology and neurocognitive reserve. (A) Relationship between cartographic profile (Parkinson’s disease OFF > Parkinson’s disease ON) and interaction between grey matter volume and education level (NART). FDR q ≤ 0.05. Subjects with greater NART and grey matter scores were more integrated (i.e. rightward shift on the B<sub>T</sub> axis) in the OFF compared to the ON state. (B) Regions with significant relationship between B<sub>T</sub> (OFF > ON) and the interactions between brain (mean grey matter) and cognitive (NART) reserve, estimated using a linear mixed effects model. FDR q ≤ 0.05. GLM = general linear model. Unless provided in the caption above, the following copyright applies to the content of this slide: © The Author(s) (2019). Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Guarantors of Brain. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.comThis article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model) Brain, Volume 142, Issue 4, 18 March 2019, Pages 1024–1034, https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awz034 The content of this slide may be subject to copyright: please see the slide notes for details.