Emerging evidence suggests the thalamus may be a relevant structure in mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI). However, the structural connectivity profile of the thalamus has not been investigated in mTBI, nor have thalamic contributions to cognitive function been characterized in this population. This study investigated the relative strength of connectivity from thalamic subregions following mTBI and subsequently studied the associations between these metrics and cognitive performance. The final analyzed dataset included 39 mTBI patients and 28 trauma control (TC) patients aged 18–60 years, who were recruited following hospital admission for physical injury. Participants completed a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) protocol including both structural MRI and multishell diffusion-weighted MRI sequences at 6–12 weeks (mean = 57 days, standard deviation = 11) post-injury. Thalamic segmentations were combined with cortical and subcortical parcellations to define nodes of each participant’s structural connectivity network. Connectivity matrices were generated by mapping streamline reconstruction onto the 179 parcels. Nodal edge strength, representing the weighted connections of thalamic subregion edges, was calculated. Participants also completed a range of cognitive tests examining processing speed, attention, memory, and executive functions. The two groups were comparable with respect to thalamic subregion edge strength and performance on cognitive tests. These primary findings suggest that nodal structural connectivity of the thalamus is normal at this time point following injury. Moderation analysis revealed several interactions between group and edge strength predicting cognitive performance, namely, increased edge strength generally predicted better cognitive performance in the TC group, but worse performance in the mTBI group. These preliminary findings require further validation, although they raise the question as to whether sustaining an mTBI results in a change in the relationship between thalamic structure and cognitive function 6–12 weeks after injury.
CassidyJD, CarrollLJ, PelosoPM, , et al; WHO Collaborating Centre Task Force on Mild Traumatic Brain Injury. Incidence, risk factors and prevention of mild traumatic brain injury: Results of the WHO Collaborating Centre Task Force on Mild Traumatic Brain Injury. J Rehabil Med, 2004; 43(43 Suppl):28–60; doi: 10.1080/16501960410023732
2.
ChancellorSE, FranzES, MinaevaOV, , et al. Pathophysiology of concussion. Elsevier: 2019.
3.
MavroudisI, CiobicaA, BejenariuAC, , et al. Cognitive impairment following mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI): A review. Medicina (Kaunas), 2024; 60(3):380.
4.
KarrJE, AreshenkoffCN, Garcia-BarreraMA. The neuropsychological outcomes of concussion: A systematic review of meta-analyses on the cognitive sequelae of mild traumatic brain injury. Neuropsychology, 2014; 28(3):321–336; doi: 10.1037/neu0000037
5.
RohlingML, BinderLM, DemakisGJ, , et al. A meta-analysis of neuropsychological outcome after mild traumatic brain injury: Re-analyses and reconsiderations of Binder et al. (1997), Frencham et al. (2005), and Pertab et al. (2009). Clin Neuropsychol, 2011; 25(4):608–623; doi: 10.1080/13854046.2011.565076
6.
CarrollL, CassidyJD, CancelliereC, , et al. A systematic review of the prognosis after mild traumatic brain injury in adults: Cognitive, psychiatric and mortality outcomes. Results of the International Collaboration on MTBI Prognosis (ICoMP). Brain Inj, 2014; 28(5–6):729; doi: 10.3109/02699052.2014.892379
7.
OehrL, AndersonJ. Diffusion-tensor imaging findings and cognitive function following hospitalized mixed-mechanism mild traumatic brain injury: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 2017; 98(11):2308–2319; doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2017.03.019
8.
DehghaniN, WimmerRD. A computational perspective of the role of the thalamus in cognition. Neural Comput, 2019; 31(7):1380–1418.
9.
ParnaudeauS, BolkanSS, KellendonkC. The mediodorsal thalamus: An essential partner of the prefrontal cortex for cognition. Biol Psychiatry, 2018; 83(8):648–656.
ShermanSM. Thalamus plays a central role in ongoing cortical functioning. Nat Neurosci, 2016; 19(4):533–541.
12.
ChildND, BenarrochEE. Anterior nucleus of the thalamus: Functional organization and clinical implications. Neurology, 2013; 81(21):1869–1876.
13.
PeräkyläJ, SunL, LehtimäkiK, , et al. Causal evidence from humans for the role of mediodorsal nucleus of the thalamus in working memory. J Cogn Neurosci, 2017; 29(12):2090–2102.
14.
LiK, FanL, CuiY, , et al. The human mediodorsal thalamus: Organization, connectivity, and function. Neuroimage, 2022; 249:118876.
15.
BiesbroekJM, VerhagenMG, van der StigchelS, , et al. When the central integrator disintegrates: A review of the role of the thalamus in cognition and dementia. Alzheimers Dement, 2024; 20(3):2209–2222.
16.
BiseccoA, StamenovaS, CaiazzoG, , et al. Attention and processing speed performance in multiple sclerosis is mostly related to thalamic volume. Brain Imaging Behav, 2018; 12(1):20–28.
17.
BatistaS, ZivadinovR, HoogsM, , et al. Basal ganglia, thalamus and neocortical atrophy predicting slowed cognitive processing in multiple sclerosis. J Neurol, 2012; 259(1):139–146.
18.
BairdME, BeareR, SealML, , et al. Mild traumatic brain injury is associated with increased thalamic subregion volume in the subacute period following injury. J Neurosci Res, 2024; 102(12):e70004.
19.
AokiY, InokuchiR. A voxel-based meta-analysis of diffusion tensor imaging in mild traumatic brain injury. Neurosci Biobehav Rev, 2016; 66:119–126.
20.
HuangS, HuangC, LiM, , et al. White matter abnormalities and cognitive deficit after mild traumatic brain injury: Comparing DTI, DKI, and NODDI. Front Neurol, 2022; 13:803066; doi: 10.3389/fneur.2022.803066
21.
WoodrowRE, WinzeckS, LuppiAI, , et al; CENTER-TBI MRI Substudy Participants and Investigators. Acute thalamic connectivity precedes chronic post-concussive symptoms in mild traumatic brain injury. Brain, 2023; 146(8):3484–3499.
22.
BanksSD, CoronadoRA, ClemonsLR, , et al. Thalamic functional connectivity in mild traumatic brain injury: Longitudinal associations with patient-reported outcomes and neuropsychological tests. Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 2016; 97(8):1254–1261.
23.
SpornsO. From simple graphs to the connectome: Networks in neuroimaging. Neuroimage, 2012; 62(2):881–886.
24.
RubinovM, SpornsO. Complex network measures of brain connectivity: Uses and interpretations. Neuroimage, 2010; 52(3):1059–1069.
25.
SpornsO. Graph theory methods: Applications in brain networks. Dialogues Clin Neurosci, 2018; 20(2):111–121.
26.
ZhangF, DaducciA, HeY, , et al. Quantitative mapping of the brain’s structural connectivity using diffusion MRI tractography: A review. Neuroimage, 2022; 249:118870.
27.
IrajiA, ChenH, WisemanN, , et al. Connectome-scale assessment of structural and functional connectivity in mild traumatic brain injury at the acute stage. Neuroimage Clin, 2016; 12:100–115; doi: 10.1016/j.nicl.2016.06.012
28.
Dall’AcquaP, JohannesS, MicaL, , et al. Connectomic and surface-based morphometric correlates of acute mild traumatic brain injury. Front Hum Neurosci, 2016; 10:127.
29.
Dall’AcquaP, JohannesS, MicaL, , et al. Functional and structural network recovery after mild traumatic brain injury: A 1-year longitudinal study. Front Hum Neurosci, 2017; 11:280; doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2017.00280
30.
HuangW, HuW, ZhangP, , et al. Early changes in the white matter microstructure and connectome underlie cognitive deficit and depression symptoms after mild traumatic brain injury. Front Neurol, 2022; 13:880902.
31.
Van Der HornHJ, KokJG, De KoningME, , et al. Altered wiring of the human structural connectome in adults with mild traumatic brain injury. J Neurotrauma, 2017; 34(5):1035–1044.
32.
RoineT, MohammadianM, HirvonenJ, , et al. Structural brain connectivity correlates with outcome in mild traumatic brain injury. J Neurotrauma, 2022; 39(5–6):336–347.
33.
YangJY, YehCH, PouponC, , et al. Diffusion MRI tractography for neurosurgery: The basics, current state, technical reliability and challenges. Phys Med Biol, 2021; 66(15); doi: 10.1088/1361-6560/ac0d90
34.
FarquharsonS, TournierJ-D, CalamanteF, , et al. White matter fiber tractography: Why we need to move beyond DTI. J Neurosurg, 2013; 118(6):1367–1377.
35.
SmithRE, TournierJ-D, CalamanteF, , et al. Anatomically-constrained tractography: Improved diffusion MRI streamlines tractography through effective use of anatomical information. Neuroimage, 2012; 62(3):1924–1938.
KuceyeskiAF, JamisonKW, OwenJP, , et al. Longitudinal increases in structural connectome segregation and functional connectome integration are associated with better recovery after mild TBI. Hum Brain Mapp, 2019; 40(15):4441–4456.
38.
AndersonJF, OehrLE, ChenJ, , et al. The relationship between cognition and white matter tract damage after mild traumatic brain injury in a premorbidly healthy, hospitalised adult cohort during the post-acute period. Front Neurol, 2023; 14:1278908.
39.
WuYC, MustafiSM, HarezlakJ, , et al. Hybrid diffusion imaging in mild traumatic brain injury. J Neurotrauma, 2018; 35(20):2377–2390; doi: 10.1089/neu.2017.5566
SmithA. Symbol digit modalities test. The clinical neuropsychologist. Western Psychological Services: Los Angeles, CA; 1973.
42.
LezakMD. Neuropsychological assessment. Oxford University Press: USA; 2004.
43.
RegardM. Stroop test–Victoria version. Neuropsychological Laboratory, University of Victoria: Victoria, BC; 1981.
44.
Sánchez-CubilloI, PeriáñezJA, Adrover-RoigD, , et al. Construct validity of the Trail Making Test: Role of task-switching, working memory, inhibition/interference control, and visuomotor abilities. J Int Neuropsychol Soc, 2009; 15(3):438–450.
45.
AndersonJFI. Cognitive complaint and objective cognition during the post-acute period after mild traumatic brain injury in pre-morbidly healthy adults. Brain Inj, 2021; 35(1):103–113; doi: 10.1080/02699052.2020.1859613
DestrieuxC, FischlB, DaleA, , et al. Automatic parcellation of human cortical gyri and sulci using standard anatomical nomenclature. Neuroimage, 2010; 53(1):1–15.
48.
VeraartJ, FieremansE, NovikovDS. Diffusion MRI noise mapping using random matrix theory. Magn Reson Med, 2016; 76(5):1582–1593.
KellnerE, DhitalB, KiselevVG, , et al. Gibbs‐ringing artifact removal based on local subvoxel‐shifts. Magn Reson Med, 2016; 76(5):1574–1581.
51.
SchillingKG, BlaberJ, HuoY, , et al. Synthesized b0 for diffusion distortion correction (Synb0-DisCo). Magn Reson Imaging, 2019; 64:62–70.
52.
TustisonNJ, AvantsBB, CookPA, , et al. N4ITK: Improved N3 bias correction. IEEE Trans Med Imaging, 2010; 29(6):1310–1320.
53.
TournierJ-D, SmithR, RaffeltD, , et al. MRtrix3: A fast, flexible and open software framework for medical image processing and visualisation. Neuroimage, 2019; 202:116137.
54.
TregidgoHF, SoskicS, AlthonayanJ, , et al. Accurate Bayesian segmentation of thalamic nuclei using diffusion MRI and an improved histological atlas. Neuroimage, 2023; 274:120129.
55.
TregidgoHF, SoskicS, OlchanyiMD, , et al. Domain-agnostic segmentation of thalamic nuclei from joint structural and diffusion MRI. arXiv Preprint, 2023:arXiv:2305.03413v1.
56.
YendikiA, PanneckP, SrinivasanP, , et al. Automated probabilistic reconstruction of white-matter pathways in health and disease using an atlas of the underlying anatomy. Front Neuroinform, 2011; 5:23.
57.
MaffeiC, LeeC, PlanichM, , et al. Using diffusion MRI data acquired with ultra-high gradient strength to improve tractography in routine-quality data. Neuroimage, 2021; 245:118706.
58.
JenkinsonM, BannisterP, BradyM, , et al. Improved optimization for the robust and accurate linear registration and motion correction of brain images. Neuroimage, 2002; 17(2):825–841.
59.
JenkinsonM, SmithS. A global optimisation method for robust affine registration of brain images. Med Image Anal, 2001; 5(2):143–156.
60.
DhollanderT, MitoR, RaffeltD, , et al. Improved white matter response function estimation for 3-tissue constrained spherical deconvolution. In: Conference: 27th International Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. ISMRS; 2019.
61.
RaffeltD, DhollanderT, TournierJ-D, , et al. Bias field correction and intensity normalisation for quantitative analysis of apparent fibre density. In: Conference: 25th International Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. ISMRS; 2017.
62.
DhollanderT, TabbaraR, Rosnarho-TornstrandJ, , et al. Multi-tissue log-domain intensity and inhomogeneity normalisation for quantitative apparent fibre density. In: Conference: 29th International Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. ISMRS; 2021.
63.
SmithRE, TournierJ-D, CalamanteF, , et al. SIFT2: Enabling dense quantitative assessment of brain white matter connectivity using streamlines tractography. Neuroimage, 2015; 119:338–351.
64.
RobertsJA, PerryA, RobertsG, , et al. Consistency-based thresholding of the human connectome. Neuroimage, 2017; 145(Pt A):118–129.
65.
OldhamS, FulcherB, ParkesL, , et al. Consistency and differences between centrality measures across distinct classes of networks. PLoS One, 2019; 14(7):e0220061.
66.
WagenmakersE-J, MarsmanM, JamilT, , et al. Bayesian inference for psychology. Part I: Theoretical advantages and practical ramifications. Psychon Bull Rev, 2018; 25(1):35–57.
67.
MakowskiD, Ben-ShacharMS, ChenSA, , et al. Indices of effect existence and significance in the Bayesian framework. Front Psychol, 2019; 10:2767.
68.
TabachnickBG, FidellLS. Experimental designs using ANOVA. Thomson/Brooks/Cole: Belmont, CA; 2007.
69.
PengC-YJ, HarwellM. Advances in missing data methods. Real Data Analysis, 2007:31.
70.
BooneKB, VaneRP, VictorTL. Critical review of recently published studies claiming long-term neurocognitive abnormalities in mild traumatic brain injury. Arch Clin Neuropsychol, 2025; 40(2):272–288.
71.
BerlotR, Metzler-BaddeleyC, IkramMA, , et al. Global efficiency of structural networks mediates cognitive control in mild cognitive impairment. Front Aging Neurosci, 2016; 8:292.
72.
WangJ, KhosrowabadiR, NgKK, , et al. Alterations in brain network topology and structural-functional connectome coupling relate to cognitive impairment. Front Aging Neurosci, 2018; 10:404.
73.
ShermanSM. The thalamus is more than just a relay. Curr Opin Neurobiol, 2007; 17(4):417–422.
74.
LevyAM, SalingMM, AndersonJF. Frequency and extent of cognitive complaint following adult civilian mild traumatic brain injury: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Brain Impair, 2023; 24(2):309–332.
75.
LevyAM, SalingMM, AndersonJF. Cognitive symptoms are not associated with cognitive performance in post-acute mTBI. Arch Clin Neuropsychol, 2025; 40(1):63–74.
76.
StulemeijerM, VosPE, BleijenbergG, , et al. Cognitive complaints after mild traumatic brain injury: Things are not always what they seem. J Psychosom Res, 2007; 63(6):637–645.
77.
YehCH, JonesDK, LiangX, , et al. Mapping structural connectivity using diffusion MRI: Challenges and opportunities. J Magn Reson Imaging, 2021; 53(6):1666–1682.
78.
ZaleskyA, FornitoA, CocchiL, , et al. Connectome sensitivity or specificity: Which is more important? Neuroimage, 2016; 142:407–420.
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.
