Spinal cord injury (SCI) leads to sensorimotor deficits and secondary health complications, such as pain and cognitive impairment. At the brain level, functional reorganization phenomena occur, affecting resting-state (rs) networks devoted to higher-order information processing. However, most studies have focused on changes of the sensorimotor cortex, and current results are partially conflicting. This systematic review aims to synthesize studies on rs networks implicated in SCI and to investigate whether functional connectivity (FC) is affected beyond the somatomotor network, which may be linked to secondary health conditions. Original seed-based whole-brain rs FC (rsFC) studies comparing individuals with SCI and controls were retrieved from Medline, Embase, and Web of Science (last searched on 02.09.2024). Each seed was assigned to a standard rs network, and studies were grouped based on seed network and direction of changed rsFC. Risk of bias was assessed using the quality assessment tool by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The study was registered in Prospero (CRD42024574397). Nine included studies provided 11 datasets (151 SCI individuals, 208 controls). RsFC changes were found between the somatomotor and ventral attentional network, between the ventral attention network and the frontal pole, and between the cerebellum and regions of the attentional and default-mode networks in SCI compared with controls. We propose a model of SCI with widespread network changes that extend beyond the somatomotor network. Our findings call for deeper examination of functional brain changes following SCI in clinical settings and thorough investigations of higher-order cognitive functions.
FawcettJW, CurtA, SteevesJD, et al.Guidelines for the conduct of clinical trials for spinal cord injury as developed by the ICCP panel: Spontaneous recovery after spinal cord injury and statistical power needed for therapeutic clinical trials. Spinal Cord, 2007; 45(3):190–205; doi: 10.1038/sj.sc.3102007
6.
MaynardFM, BrackenMB, CreaseyG, et al.International standards for neurological and functional classification of spinal cord injury. Spinal cord. Spinal Cord, 1997; 35(5):266–274; doi: 10.1038/sj.sc.3100432
7.
BurnsAS, MarinoRJ, FlandersAE, et al.Clinical diagnosis and prognosis following spinal cord injury. Handb Clin Neurol, 2012; 109:47–62; doi: 10.1016/B978-0-444-52137-8.00003-6
8.
KirshblumS, SniderB, ErenF, et al.Characterizing natural recovery after traumatic spinal cord injury. J Neurotrauma, 2021; 38(9):1267–1284; doi: 10.1089/neu.2020.7473
9.
AdegeestCY, van GentJAN, Stolwijk-SwüsteJM, et al.Influence of severity and level of injury on the occurrence of complications during the subacute and chronic stage of traumatic spinal cord injury: A systematic review. J Neurosurg Spine, 2022; 36(4):632–652; doi: 10.3171/2021.7.SPINE21537
10.
NardoneR, HöllerY, BrigoF, et al.Functional brain reorganization after spinal cord injury: Systematic review of animal and human studies. Brain Res, 2013; 1504:58–73; doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2012.12.034
11.
TurnerJA, LeeJS, SchandlerSL, et al.An fMRI investigation of hand representation in paraplegic humans. Neurorehabil Neural Repair, 2003; 17(1):37–47; doi: 10.1177/0888439002250443
12.
MooreCI, SternCE, DunbarC, et al.Referred phantom sensations and cortical reorganization after spinal cord injury in humans. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2000; 97(26):14703–14708; doi: 10.1073/pnas.250348997
13.
BruehlmeierM, DietzV, LeendersKL, et al.How does the human brain deal with a spinal cord injury? Eur J Neurosci, 1998; 10(12):3918–3922; doi: 10.1046/j.1460-9568.1998.00454.x
14.
WrigleyPJ, PressSR, GustinSM, et al.Neuropathic pain and primary somatosensory cortex reorganization following spinal cord injury. Pain, 2009; 141(1–2):52–59; doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2008.10.007
CurtA, AlkadhiH, CrelierGR, et al.Changes of non-affected upper limb cortical representation in paraplegic patients as assessed by fMRI. Brain, 2002; 125(Pt 11):2567–2578; doi: 10.1093/brain/awf250
17.
FreundP, WeiskopfN, WardNS, et al.Disability, atrophy and cortical reorganization following spinal cord injury. Brain, 2011; 134(Pt 6):1610–1622; doi: 10.1093/brain/awr093
18.
FreundP, RothwellJ, CraggsM, et al.Corticomotor representation to a human forearm muscle changes following cervical spinal cord injury. Eur J Neurosci, 2011; 34(11):1839–1846; doi: 10.1111/j.1460-9568.2011.07895.x
19.
GreenJB, SoraE, BialyY, et al.Cortical motor reorganization after paraplegia. Neurology, 1999; 53(4):736–743; doi: 10.1212/WNL.53.4.736
20.
RosnerJ, de AndradeDC, DavisKD, et al.Central neuropathic pain. Nat Rev Dis Primers, 2023; 9(1):73; doi: 10.1038/s41572-023-00484-9
21.
GrauJW, HuangY-J, TurtleJD, et al.When pain hurts: Nociceptive stimulation induces a state of maladaptive plasticity and impairs recovery after spinal cord injury. J Neurotrauma, 2017; 34(10):1873–1890; doi: 10.1089/neu.2016.4626
22.
SoaresJM, MagalhãesR, MoreiraPS, et al.A Hitchhiker’s guide to functional magnetic resonance imaging. Front Neurosci, 2016; 10:515; doi: 10.3389/fnins.2016.00515
23.
FristonKJ. Functional and effective connectivity in neuroimaging: A synthesis. Hum Brain Mapp, 1994; 2(1–2):56–78; doi: 10.1002/hbm.460020107
24.
BiswalB, YetkinFZ, HaughtonVM, et al.Functional connectivity in the motor cortex of resting human brain using echo‐planar mri. Magn Reson Med, 1995; 34(4):537–541; doi: 10.1002/mrm.1910340409
25.
GreiciusMD, KrasnowB, ReissAL, et al.Functional connectivity in the resting brain: A network analysis of the default mode hypothesis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2003; 100(1):253–258; doi: 10.1073/pnas.0135058100
26.
BucknerRL, Andrews‐HannaJR, SchacterDL. The Brain’s Default Network. Ann N Y Acad Sci, 2008; 1124(1):1–38; doi: 10.1196/annals.1440.011
27.
FoxMD, CorbettaM, SnyderAZ, et al.Spontaneous neuronal activity distinguishes human dorsal and ventral attention systems. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2006; 103(26):10046–10051; doi: 10.1073/pnas.0604187103
28.
VincentJL, KahnI, SnyderAZ, et al.Evidence for a frontoparietal control system revealed by intrinsic functional connectivity. J Neurophysiol, 2008; 100(6):3328–3342; doi: 10.1152/jn.90355.2008
29.
DosenbachNUF, FairDA, MiezinFM, et al.Distinct brain networks for adaptive and stable task control in humans. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2007; 104(26):11073–11078; doi: 10.1073/pnas.0704320104
30.
SeeleyWW, MenonV, SchatzbergAF, et al.Dissociable intrinsic connectivity networks for salience processing and executive control. J Neurosci, 2007; 27(9):2349–2356; doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5587-06.2007
31.
DamoiseauxJS, RomboutsSARB, BarkhofF, et al.Consistent resting-state networks across healthy subjects. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2006; 103(37):13848–13853; doi: 10.1073/pnas.0601417103
32.
SeitzmanBA, SnyderAZ, LeuthardtEC, et al.The state of resting state networks. Top Magn Reson Imaging, 2019; 28(4):189–196; doi: 10.1097/RMR.0000000000000214
33.
HouJ, XiangZ, YanR, et al.Motor recovery at 6 months after admission is related to structural and functional reorganization of the spine and brain in patients with spinal cord injury. Hum Brain Mapp, 2016; 37(6):2195–2209; doi: 10.1002/hbm.23163
34.
GuoY, GeY, LiJ, et al.Impact of injury duration on a sensorimotor functional network in complete spinal cord injury. J Neurosci Res, 2022; 100(9):1765–1774; doi: 10.1002/jnr.25069
35.
de AraújoAVL, RibeiroFPG, MassettiT, et al.Effectiveness of anodal transcranial direct current stimulation to improve muscle strength and motor functionality after incomplete spinal cord injury: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Spinal Cord, 2020; 58(6):635–646; doi: 10.1038/s41393-020-0438-2
36.
HouJ-M, SunT-S, XiangZ-M, et al.Alterations of resting-state regional and network-level neural function after acute spinal cord injury. Neuroscience, 2014; 277:446–454; doi: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2014.07.045
37.
MandloiS, SyedM, ShorakaO, et al.The role of the insula in chronic pain following spinal cord injury: A resting‐state fMRI study. J Neuroimaging, 2023; 33(5):781–791; doi: 10.1111/jon.13117
38.
KarunakaranKD, YuanR, HeJ, et al.Resting-state functional connectivity of the thalamus in complete spinal cord injury. Neurorehabil Neural Repair, 2020; 34(2):122–133; doi: 10.1177/1545968319893299
39.
LiM-T, SunJ-W, ZhanL-L, et al.The effect of seed location on functional connectivity: Evidence from an image-based meta-analysis. Front Neurosci, 2023; 17:1120741; doi: 10.3389/fnins.2023.1120741
40.
VallesiV, RichterJK, HunkelerN, et al.Functional connectivity and amplitude of low-frequency fluctuations changes in people with complete subacute and chronic spinal cord injury. Sci Rep, 2022; 12(1):20874; doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-25345-5
41.
Oni-OrisanA, KaushalM, LiW, et al.Alterations in cortical sensorimotor connectivity following complete cervical spinal cord injury: A prospective resting-state fMRI study. PLoS One, 2016; 11(3):e0150351; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0150351
42.
WangL, ZhengW, YangB, et al.Altered functional connectivity between primary motor cortex subregions and the whole brain in patients with incomplete cervical spinal cord injury. Front Neurosci, 2022; 16:996325; doi: 10.3389/fnins.2022.996325
43.
MinY-S, ParkJW, JinSU, et al.Alteration of resting-state brain sensorimotor connectivity following spinal cord injury: A resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging study. J Neurotrauma, 2015; 32(18):1422–1427; doi: 10.1089/neu.2014.3661
44.
LiX, ChenQ, ZhengW, et al.Inconsistency between cortical reorganization and functional connectivity alteration in the sensorimotor cortex following incomplete cervical spinal cord injury. Brain Imaging Behav, 2020; 14(6):2367–2377; doi: 10.1007/s11682-019-00190-9
45.
NakanishiT, NakagawaK, KobayashiH, et al.specific brain reorganization underlying superior upper limb motor function after spinal cord injury: A multimodal mri study. Neurorehabil Neural Repair, 2021; 35(3):220–232; doi: 10.1177/1545968321989347
46.
LiX, WangL, ChenQ, et al.The reorganization of insular subregions in individuals with below-level neuropathic pain following incomplete spinal cord injury. Neural Plast, 2020; 2020:2796571–2796579; doi: 10.1155/2020/2796571
47.
ZhengW, WangL, ChenQ, et al.Functional reorganizations outside the sensorimotor regions following complete thoracolumbar spinal cord injury. J Magn Reson Imaging, 2021; 54(5):1551–1559; doi: 10.1002/jmri.27764
48.
ZhengW, WangL, YangB, et al.Cerebellum regulating cerebral functional cortex through multiple pathways in complete thoracolumbar spinal cord injury. Front Neurosci, 2022; 16:914549; doi: 10.3389/fnins.2022.914549
49.
ZhangY-N, XingX-X, ChenL, et al.Modification of the resting-state network involved at different stages of neuropathic pain. Neurosci Lett, 2022; 789:136866; doi: 10.1016/j.neulet.2022.136866
50.
SezerN, AkkuşS, UğurluFG. Chronic complications of spinal cord injury. World J Orthop, 2015; 6(1):24–33; doi: 10.5312/wjo.v6.i1.24
51.
Molina-GallegoB, Gómez-CantarinoS, Ugarte-GurrutxagaMI, et al.Neuropsychological study in patients with spinal cord injuries. Healthcare (Basel), 2021; 9(3):241; doi: 10.3390/healthcare9030241
CalderoneA, CardileD, De LucaR, et al.Cognitive, behavioral and psychiatric symptoms in patients with spinal cord injury: A scoping review. Front Psychiatry, 2024; 15:1369714; doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2024.1369714
54.
CraigA, GuestR, TranY, et al.Cognitive impairment and mood states after spinal cord injury. J Neurotrauma, 2017; 34(6):1156–1163; doi: 10.1089/neu.2016.4632
55.
CraigA, Nicholson PerryK, GuestR, et al.Prospective study of the occurrence of psychological disorders and comorbidities after spinal cord injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 2015; 96(8):1426–1434; doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2015.02.027
56.
GlisicM, StoyanovJ, MuellerG, et al.Changes in secondary health conditions among individuals with spinal cord injury after transition from inpatient rehabilitation to community living. Am J Phys Med Rehabil, 2024; 103,(Suppl 3):S260–S267; doi: 10.1097/PHM.0000000000002600
57.
AthanasiouA, KladosMA, PandriaN, et al.A systematic review of investigations into functional brain connectivity following spinal cord injury. Front Hum Neurosci, 2017; 11:517; doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2017.00517
58.
MüllerVI, CieslikEC, SerbanescuI, et al.Altered brain activity in unipolar depression revisited. JAMA Psychiatry, 2017; 74(1):47–55; doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2016.2783
59.
MüllerVI, CieslikEC, LairdAR, et al.Ten simple rules for neuroimaging meta-analysis. Neurosci Biobehav Rev, 2018; 84:151–161; doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2017.11.012
60.
PageMJ, McKenzieJE, BossuytPM, et al.The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Bmj, 2021; 372:n71; doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71
61.
Tzourio-MazoyerN, LandeauB, PapathanassiouD, et al.Automated anatomical labeling of activations in spm using a macroscopic anatomical parcellation of the mni mri single-subject brain. Neuroimage, 2002; 15(1):273–289; doi: 10.1006/nimg.2001.0978
62.
FanL, LiH, ZhuoJ, et al.The human brainnetome atlas: A new brain atlas based on connectional architecture. Cereb Cortex, 2016; 26(8):3508–3526; doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhw157
63.
BucknerRL, KrienenFM, CastellanosA, et al.The organization of the human cerebellum estimated by intrinsic functional connectivity. J Neurophysiol, 2011; 106(5):2322–2345; doi: 10.1152/jn.00339.2011
64.
ChoiEY, YeoBTT, BucknerRL. The organization of the human striatum estimated by intrinsic functional connectivity. J Neurophysiol, 2012; 108(8):2242–2263; doi: 10.1152/jn.00270.2012
65.
Thomas YeoBT, KrienenFM, SepulcreJ, et al.The organization of the human cerebral cortex estimated by intrinsic functional connectivity. J Neurophysiol, 2011; 106(3):1125–1165; doi: 10.1152/jn.00338.2011
66.
ShirerWR, RyaliS, RykhlevskaiaE, et al.Decoding subject-driven cognitive states with whole-brain connectivity patterns. Cereb Cortex, 2012; 22(1):158–165; doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhr099
67.
BucknerRL, KrienenFM. The evolution of distributed association networks in the human brain. Trends Cogn Sci, 2013; 17(12):648–665; doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2013.09.017
68.
KaiserRH, Andrews-HannaJR, WagerTD, et al.Large-Scale Network Dysfunction in Major Depressive Disorder. JAMA Psychiatry, 2015; 72(6):603–611; doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2015.0071
69.
LiJ, ShanY, ZhaoX, et al.Structural and functional changes in the brain after chronic complete thoracic spinal cord injury. Brain Res, 2024; 1823:148680; doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2023.148680
ManniE, PetrosiniL. A century of cerebellar somatotopy: A debated representation. Nat Rev Neurosci, 2004; 5(3):241–249; doi: 10.1038/nrn1347
72.
FalciS, MorseL, BerlinerJ, et al.Neuropathic pain relief and altered brain networks after dorsal root entry zone microcoagulation in patients with spinal cord injury. Brain Commun, 2024; 6(6):fcae411; doi: 10.1093/braincomms/fcae411
73.
KincadeJM, AbramsRA, AstafievSV, et al.An event-related functional magnetic resonance imaging study of voluntary and stimulus-driven orienting of attention. J Neurosci, 2005; 25(18):4593–4604; doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0236-05.2005
74.
ZhengW, ChenQ, ChenX, et al.Brain white matter impairment in patients with spinal cord injury. Neural Plast, 2017; 2017:4671607–4671608; doi: 10.1155/2017/4671607
75.
SandalicD, CraigA, TranY, et al.Cognitive impairment in individuals with spinal cord injury. Neurology, 2022; 99(16); doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000200957
76.
MoroV, BeccherleM, ScandolaM, et al.Massive body-brain disconnection consequent to spinal cord injuries drives profound changes in higher-order cognitive and emotional functions: A PRISMA scoping review. Neurosci Biobehav Rev, 2023; 154:105395; doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2023.105395
77.
DowlerRN, HarringtonDL, HaalandKY, et al.Profiles of cognitive functioning in chronic spinal cord injury and the role of moderating variables. J Int Neuropsychol Soc, 1997; 3(5):464–472.
78.
LabrakakisC. The role of the insular cortex in pain. Int J Mol Sci, 2023; 24(6):5736; doi: 10.3390/ijms24065736
79.
LuC, YangT, ZhaoH, et al.Insular cortex is critical for the perception, modulation, and chronification of pain. Neurosci Bull, 2016; 32(2):191–201; doi: 10.1007/s12264-016-0016-y
80.
BurkeD, FullenBM, StokesD, et al.Neuropathic pain prevalence following spinal cord injury: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. Eur J Pain, 2017; 21(1):29–44; doi: 10.1002/ejp.905
81.
KowalskiJL, MorseLR, TroyK, et al.Resting state functional connectivity differentiation of neuropathic and nociceptive pain in individuals with chronic spinal cord injury. Neuroimage Clin, 2023; 38:103414; doi: 10.1016/j.nicl.2023.103414
82.
HuynhV, LütolfR, RosnerJ, et al.Supraspinal nociceptive networks in neuropathic pain after spinal cord injury. Hum Brain Mapp, 2021; 42(12):3733–3749; doi: 10.1002/hbm.25401
83.
BenisonAM, ChumachenkoS, HarrisonJA, et al.Caudal granular insular cortex is sufficient and necessary for the long-term maintenance of allodynic behavior in the rat attributable to mononeuropathy. J Neurosci, 2011; 31(17):6317–6328; doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0076-11.2011
84.
MetzAE, YauH-J, CentenoMV, et al.Morphological and functional reorganization of rat medial prefrontal cortex in neuropathic pain. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2009; 106(7):2423–2428; doi: 10.1073/pnas.0809897106
85.
SanganahalliBG, PavuluriS, ChitturiJ, et al.Lateralized supraspinal functional connectivity correlate with pain and motor dysfunction in rat hemicontusion cervical spinal cord injury. Neurotrauma Rep, 2022; 3(1):421–432; doi: 10.1089/neur.2022.0040
86.
SanganahalliBG, ChitturiJ, HermanP, et al.Supraspinal sensorimotor and pain-related reorganization after a hemicontusion rat cervical spinal cord injury. J Neurotrauma, 2021; 38(24):3393–3405; doi: 10.1089/neu.2021.0190
87.
SeminowiczDA, JiangL, JiY, et al.Thalamocortical asynchrony in conditions of spinal cord injury pain in rats. J Neurosci, 2012; 32(45):15843–15848; doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2927-12.2012
88.
OngW-Y, StohlerCS, HerrDR. Role of the prefrontal cortex in pain processing. Mol Neurobiol, 2019; 56(2):1137–1166; doi: 10.1007/s12035-018-1130-9
89.
IharaN, WakaizumiK, NishimuraD, et al.Aberrant resting-state functional connectivity of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex to the anterior insula and its association with fear avoidance belief in chronic neck pain patients. PLoS One, 2019; 14(8):e0221023; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0221023
90.
OshiroY, QuevedoAS, McHaffieJG, et al.Brain mechanisms supporting discrimination of sensory features of pain: A new model. J Neurosci, 2009; 29(47):14924–14931; doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5538-08.2009
91.
CritchleyHD, WiensS, RotshteinP, et al.Neural systems supporting interoceptive awareness. Nat Neurosci, 2004; 7(2):189–195; doi: 10.1038/nn1176
92.
BerlucchiG, AgliotiSM. The body in the brain revisited. Exp Brain Res, 2010; 200(1):25–35; doi: 10.1007/s00221-009-1970-7
93.
SerinoA, AlsmithA, CostantiniM, et al.Bodily ownership and self-location: Components of bodily self-consciousness. Conscious Cogn, 2013; 22(4):1239–1252; doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2013.08.013
94.
ScandolaM, AgliotiSM, LazzeriG, et al.Visuo-motor and interoceptive influences on peripersonal space representation following spinal cord injury. Sci Rep, 2020; 10(1):5162; doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-62080-1
95.
LucciG, PazzagliaM. Towards multiple interactions of inner and outer sensations in corporeal awareness. Front Hum Neurosci, 2015; 9:163; doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2015.00163
96.
SalvioliB, BazzocchiG, BarbaraG, et al.Sigmoid compliance and visceral perception in spinal cord injury patients. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2012; 24(3):340–345; doi: 10.1097/MEG.0b013e32834fbf73
97.
LenggenhagerB, PazzagliaM, ScivolettoG, et al.The sense of the body in individuals with spinal cord injury. PLoS One, 2012; 7(11):e50757; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0050757
98.
RijntjesM, BuechelC, KiebelS, et al.Multiple somatotopic representations in the human cerebellum. Neuroreport, 1999; 10(17):3653–3658; doi: 10.1097/00001756-199911260-00035
99.
HolmesG. The cerebellum of man. Brain, 1939; 62(1):1–30; doi: 10.1093/brain/62.1.1
100.
WalkerHK. The Cerebellum. 1990.
101.
LeiY, PerezMA. Cerebellar contribution to sensorimotor adaptation deficits in humans with spinal cord injury. Sci Rep, 2021; 11(1):2507; doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-77543-8
102.
StoodleyCJ, SchmahmannJD. Evidence for topographic organization in the cerebellum of motor control versus cognitive and affective processing. Cortex, 2010; 46(7):831–844; doi: 10.1016/j.cortex.2009.11.008
103.
DennyBT, KoberH, WagerTD, et al.A Meta-analysis of functional neuroimaging studies of self- and other judgments reveals a spatial gradient for mentalizing in medial prefrontal cortex. J Cogn Neurosci, 2012; 24(8):1742–1752; doi: 10.1162/jocn_a_00233
104.
Andrews-HannaJR, SaxeR, YarkoniT. Contributions of episodic retrieval and mentalizing to autobiographical thought: Evidence from functional neuroimaging, resting-state connectivity, and fMRI meta-analyses. Neuroimage, 2014; 91:324–335; doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.01.032
105.
DixonML, De La VegaA, MillsC, et al.Heterogeneity within the frontoparietal control network and its relationship to the default and dorsal attention networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 2018; 115(7); doi: 10.1073/pnas.1715766115
106.
ZhuL, WuG, ZhouX, et al.Altered spontaneous brain activity in patients with acute spinal cord injury revealed by resting-state functional MRI. PLoS One, 2015; 10(3):e0118816; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0118816
107.
YangB, ZhengW, WangL, et al.Specific alterations in brain white matter networks and their impact on clinical function in pediatric patients with thoracolumbar spinal cord injury. J Magn Reson Imaging, 2024; 60(5):1842–1852; doi: 10.1002/jmri.29231
108.
ChandGB, DhamalaM. Interactions among the brain default-mode, salience, and central-executive networks during perceptual decision-making of moving dots. Brain Connect, 2016; 6(3):249–254; doi: 10.1089/brain.2015.0379
109.
BaumannO, MattingleyJB. Functional topography of primary emotion processing in the human cerebellum. Neuroimage, 2012; 61(4):805–811; doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.03.044
110.
SchmahmannJD. The cerebellum and cognition. Neurosci Lett, 2019; 688:62–75; doi: 10.1016/j.neulet.2018.07.005
111.
SchmahmannJD. The role of the cerebellum in cognition and emotion: Personal reflections since 1982 on the dysmetria of thought hypothesis, and its historical evolution from theory to therapy. Neuropsychol Rev, 2010; 20(3):236–260; doi: 10.1007/s11065-010-9142-x
112.
D’AngeloE, CasaliS. Seeking a unified framework for cerebellar function and dysfunction: From circuit operations to cognition. Front Neural Circuits, 2012; 6:116; doi: 10.3389/fncir.2012.00116
113.
StoodleyCJ, SchmahmannJD. Functional topography of the human cerebellum. Handb Clin Neurol, 2018; 154:59–70; doi: 10.1016/B978-0-444-63956-1.00004-7
ChiaravallotiND, WeberE, WylieG, et al.The impact of level of injury on patterns of cognitive dysfunction in individuals with spinal cord injury. J Spinal Cord Med, 2020; 43(5):633–641; doi: 10.1080/10790268.2019.1696076
116.
ChiaravallotiND, WeberE, WylieG, et al.Patterns of cognitive deficits in persons with spinal cord injury as compared with both age-matched and older individuals without spinal cord injury. J Spinal Cord Med, 2020; 43(1):88–97; doi: 10.1080/10790268.2018.1543103
117.
MannarelliD, PaulettiC, MissoriP, et al.Cerebellum’s contribution to attention, executive functions and timing: Psychophysiological evidence from event-related potentials. Brain Sci, 2023; 13(12):1683; doi: 10.3390/brainsci13121683
118.
YangB, XinH, WangL, et al.Distinct brain network patterns in complete and incomplete spinal cord injury patients based on graph theory analysis. CNS Neurosci Ther, 2024; 30(8):e14910; doi: 10.1111/cns.14910
119.
HutsonTH, Di GiovanniS. The translational landscape in spinal cord injury: Focus on neuroplasticity and regeneration. Nat Rev Neurol, 2019; 15(12):732–745; doi: 10.1038/s41582-019-0280-3
120.
HawasliAH, RutlinJ, RolandJL, et al.Spinal cord injury disrupts resting-state networks in the human brain. J Neurotrauma, 2018; 35(6):864–873; doi: 10.1089/neu.2017.5212
121.
MohanA, RobertoAJ, MohanA, et al.The significance of the default mode network (dmn) in neurological and neuropsychiatric disorders: A review. Yale J Biol Med, 2016; 89(1):49–57.
122.
CohenML, TulskyDS, HoldnackJA, et al.Cognition among community-dwelling individuals with spinal cord injury. Rehabil Psychol, 2017; 62(4):425–434; doi: 10.1037/rep0000140
123.
HanJ, ZhouL, WuH, et al.Eyes-Open and eyes-closed resting state network connectivity differences. Brain Sci, 2023; 13(1):122; doi: 10.3390/brainsci13010122
124.
CostumeroV, BueichekúE, Adrián-VenturaJ, et al.Opening or closing eyes at rest modulates the functional connectivity of V1 with default and salience networks. Sci Rep, 2020; 10(1):9137; doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-66100-y
125.
AgcaogluO, WilsonTW, WangY, et al.Resting state connectivity differences in eyes open versus eyes closed conditions. Hum Brain Mapp, 2019; 40(8):2488–2498; doi: 10.1002/hbm.24539
126.
YoonEJ, KimYK, KimH-R, et al.Transcranial direct current stimulation to lessen neuropathic pain after spinal cord injury. Neurorehabil Neural Repair, 2014; 28(3):250–259; doi: 10.1177/1545968313507632
127.
LinRL, DouaudG, FilippiniN, et al.Structural connectivity variances underlie functional and behavioral changes during pain relief induced by neuromodulation. Sci Rep, 2017; 7:41603; doi: 10.1038/srep41603
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
