% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@ARTICLE{Paul:902525,
      author       = {Paul, Theresa and Hensel, Lukas and Rehme, Anne K. and
                      Tscherpel, Caroline and Eickhoff, Simon B. and Fink, Gereon
                      R. and Grefkes, Christian and Volz, Lukas J.},
      title        = {{E}arly motor network connectivity after stroke: {A}n
                      interplay of general reorganization and state‐specific
                      compensation},
      journal      = {Human brain mapping},
      volume       = {42},
      number       = {16},
      issn         = {1065-9471},
      address      = {New York, NY},
      publisher    = {Wiley-Liss},
      reportid     = {FZJ-2021-04334},
      pages        = {5230 - 5243},
      year         = {2021},
      abstract     = {Motor recovery after stroke relies on functional
                      reorganization of the motor network, which is commonly
                      assessed via functional magnetic resonance imaging
                      (fMRI)-based resting-state functional connectivity (rsFC) or
                      task-related effective connectivity (trEC). Measures of
                      either connectivity mode have been shown to successfully
                      explain motor impairment post-stroke, posing the question
                      whether motor impairment is more closely reflected by rsFC
                      or trEC. Moreover, highly similar changes in ipsilesional
                      and interhemispheric motor network connectivity have been
                      reported for both rsFC and trEC after stroke, suggesting
                      that altered rsFC and trEC may capture similar aspects of
                      information integration in the motor network reflecting
                      principle, state-independent mechanisms of network
                      reorganization rather than state-specific compensation
                      strategies. To address this question, we conducted the first
                      direct comparison of rsFC and trEC in a sample of early
                      subacute stroke patients (n = 26, included on average
                      7.3 days post-stroke). We found that both rsFC and trEC
                      explained motor impairment across patients, stressing the
                      clinical potential of fMRI-based connectivity. Importantly,
                      intrahemispheric connectivity between ipsilesional M1 and
                      premotor areas depended on the activation state, whereas
                      interhemispheric connectivity between homologs was
                      state-independent. From a mechanistic perspective, our
                      results may thus arise from two distinct aspects of motor
                      network plasticity: task-specific compensation within the
                      ipsilesional hemisphere and a more fundamental form of
                      reorganization between hemispheres.},
      cin          = {INM-3 / INM-7},
      ddc          = {610},
      cid          = {I:(DE-Juel1)INM-3-20090406 / I:(DE-Juel1)INM-7-20090406},
      pnm          = {5252 - Brain Dysfunction and Plasticity (POF4-525)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-5252},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      pubmed       = {pmid:34346531},
      UT           = {WOS:000680934200001},
      doi          = {10.1002/hbm.25612},
      url          = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/902525},
}