CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 176Genetics and Neurodevelopmental DisordersAutism Spectrum Disorder ResearchNeural dynamics and brain function

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 63 of the 63 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A resting EEG study of neocortical hyperexcitability and altered functional connectivity in fragile X syndrome.

Open access
Wang, Jun, Ethridge, Lauren E., Mosconi, Matthew W., White, Stormi P., Binder, Devin K., Pedapati, Ernest V., Erickson, Craig A., Byerly, Matthew J., Sweeney, John A.·2017·Journal of Neurodevelopmental Disorders
DOI 10.1186/s11689-017-9191-zPMC PMC5351111
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: KO mice, a mouse model of the fragile X syndrome which is the most common single gene cause of autism and intellectual disability. METHODS: We collected resting state dense-array electroencephalography data from 21 fragile X syndrome (FXS) patients and 21 age-matched healthy participants. RESULTS: FXS patients exhibited greater gamma frequency band power, which was correlated with social and sensory processing difficulties. Second, FXS patients showed increased spatial spreading of phase-synchronized high frequency neural activity in the gamma band. Third, we observed increased negative theta-to-gamma but decreased alpha-to-gamma band amplitude coupling, and the level of increased theta power was inversely related to the level of resting gamma power in FXS. CONCLUSIONS: Increased theta band power and coupling from frontal sources may represent a mechanism providing compensatory inhibition of high-frequency gamma band activity, potentially contributing to the widely varying level of neurophysiological and behavioral abnormalities and treatment response seen in full-mutation FXS patients. These findings extend preclinical observations and provide new mechanistic insights into brain alterations and their variability across FXS patients. Electrophysiological measures may provide useful translational biomarkers for advancing drug development and individualizing treatments for neurodevelopmental disorders with associated neuronal hyperexcitability.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s11689-017-9191-z

Cites

63 of 63 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig. 1 a Significant group differences in connectivity strength between FXS and healthy control participants based on permutation tests (p < 0.05) show increased connectivity in FXS in the gamma band across electrodes but reduced within-band connectivity in the alpha (lower and upper) and beta range. b Mean and standard error of between-electrode distances for electrode pairs showing group differences (plotted in a) in lower alpha, upper alpha, beta and gamma bands. Asterisk denotes significant differences in connectivity distances with significant group differences between bands at p < 0.05. c Bivariate scatter plots depicting the relationship between average connectivity strength (dbWPLI) and average between-electrode distance for FXS (red dots) and healthy control participants (black dots)
Fig. 1 a Significant group differences in connectivity strength between FXS and healthy control participants based on permutation tests (p < 0.05) show increased connectivity in FXS in the gamma band across electrodes but reduced within-band connectivity in the alpha (lower and upper) and beta range. b Mean and standard error of between-electrode distances for electrode pairs showing group differences (plotted in a) in lower alpha, upper alpha, beta and gamma bands. Asterisk denotes significant differences in connectivity distances with significant group differences between bands at p < 0.05. c Bivariate scatter plots depicting the relationship between average connectivity strength (dbWPLI) and average between-electrode distance for FXS (red dots) and healthy control participants (black dots)CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 2 Scalp topographies of relative power spectrum for FXS and healthy control participants per frequency band, with significant group differences presented in the bottom row (p < 0.05, corrected). Relative power represents the percentage of power in each frequency band divided by total power across 1–80 Hz
Fig. 2 Scalp topographies of relative power spectrum for FXS and healthy control participants per frequency band, with significant group differences presented in the bottom row (p < 0.05, corrected). Relative power represents the percentage of power in each frequency band divided by total power across 1–80 HzCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 3 a Scalp topographies of “global coupling” showing correlations between activity in the region showing the maximum relative power of activity in the theta, and lower and upper alpha power bands defined as the average of the power in that region of electrodes clusters (marked with *) and gamma power in all other electrodes for FXS and healthy control participants. Significant group differences are presented in the bottom row (p < 0.05, corrected), with dark blue reflecting no group difference. b Mean and standard error of correlations for all electrodes showing group differences as are plotted in A. Asterisk denotes correlations of spectral power in theta and upper alpha bands with gamma band power that are significantly different from zero based on the results of permutation analyses at p < 0.05
Fig. 3 a Scalp topographies of “global coupling” showing correlations between activity in the region showing the maximum relative power of activity in the theta, and lower and upper alpha power bands defined as the average of the power in that region of electrodes clusters (marked with *) and gamma power in all other electrodes for FXS and healthy control participants. Significant group differences are presented in the bottom row (p < 0.05, corrected), with dark blue reflecting no group difference. b Mean and standard error of correlations for all electrodes showing group differences as are plotted in A. Asterisk denotes correlations of spectral power in theta and upper alpha bands with gamma band power that are significantly different from zero based on the results of permutation analyses at p < 0.05CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 4 Scatter plot of each participant’s values on three gamma measurements for FXS and healthy control participants: a gamma power, b gamma connectivity, and c amplitude coupling of gamma with theta and alpha band activity across electrodes. Circle denotes female participants, and plus sign denotes male participants
Fig. 4 Scatter plot of each participant’s values on three gamma measurements for FXS and healthy control participants: a gamma power, b gamma connectivity, and c amplitude coupling of gamma with theta and alpha band activity across electrodes. Circle denotes female participants, and plus sign denotes male participantsCC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Rutter M, Bailey A, Lord C. SCQ: the Social Communication Questionnaire. Torrance: WPS; 2003.
  2. Roid GH. Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales, 5th edition (SB:V). Itasca: Riverside Publishing; 2003.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 176

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Wang, J., Ethridge, L. E., Mosconi, M. W., White, S. P., Binder, D. K., Pedapati, E. V., Erickson, C. A., Byerly, M. J., & Sweeney, J. A.
Affiliations
  • Zhejiang Normal University (CN)
  • University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center (US)
  • University of Kansas (US)
  • The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center (US)
  • University of California, Riverside (US)
  • Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center (US)
  • Montana State University (US)
  • University of Cincinnati (US)
Corresponding author
Wang, Jun
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Neurodevelopmental Disorders
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2017-03-14
Volume
9
Issue
1
Pages
11-11
ISSN
  • 1866-1947 (ISSN-L)
  • 1866-1955
DOI
10.1186/s11689-017-9191-z
PMC
PMC5351111
OpenAlex
W2596913176
Cited by
176
References
63
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 4
FWCI
9.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Neurodevelopmental Disorders (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • KU ScholarWorks (University of Kansas) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (U54 HD082008-01)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetics and Neurodevelopmental Disorders
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Autism Spectrum Disorder Research
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
Keywords
fragile X syndrome, resting-state EEG, functional connectivity, gamma power, theta power, amplitude coupling, autism spectrum disorder, intellectual disability, biomarkers, neurodevelopmental disorders

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review