A Model for Visual Memory Encoding - Figure 1

<p>A) Relations and directionality of the information flow between task-related ICs. Details regarding each component are provided in <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0107761#pone-0107761-t001" target="_blank">Table 1</a>. Each component was attributed to a particular network (See <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0107761#s4" target="_blank">discussion</a> section for a precise analysis). Each arrow is indicating a significant (p<0.05, FDR corrected) causal relation between two components. Component representations are in neurological convention (left hemisphere is on the left side of the image). B) Respective timecourse of components depicted in A)</p

Proposed model for visual memory encoding based on results obtained in <b>Figure 1</b>.

<p>A precise description of the model is provided in the <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0107761#s4" target="_blank">Discussion</a> section.</p

Cortical localizations of the 10 task-related independents components: for each component we presented the anatomical location, corresponding Brodmann area(s), and the maximum Z-score with its Talairach coordinates (obtained using the Talairach utility provided in GIFT toolbox on group-ICA components maps).

<p>Cortical localizations of the 10 task-related independents components: for each component we presented the anatomical location, corresponding Brodmann area(s), and the maximum Z-score with its Talairach coordinates (obtained using the Talairach utility provided in GIFT toolbox on group-ICA components maps).</p

Major veins selected for susceptibility analysis.

<p>1) Left spetal vein; 2) right septal vein; 3) central septal veins; 4) left thalamostriate vein; 5) right thalamostriate vein; 6) internal cerebral vein; 7) left basal vein of Rosenthal; and 8) right basal vein of Rosenthal.</p

Group mean values for each vein and student’s T-test comparison between control & patient groups and between control and follow-up groups.

<p>* and bold font indicates significant difference. L = left, R = right.</p><p>Group mean values for each vein and student’s T-test comparison between control & patient groups and between control and follow-up groups.</p

mTBI patients' SAC scores compared with normalized SAC scores.

<p>* and bold font indicates significant difference.</p><p>mTBI patients' SAC scores compared with normalized SAC scores.</p

ASL-assessed patients’ and controls’ demographic data and cause of injury.

<p>hr = hours, d = days, nonsp hyperint = nonspecific hyperintensity, SBV = pedestrian struck by vehicle.</p><p>ASL-assessed patients’ and controls’ demographic data and cause of injury.</p

Diagram of the ASL analysis workflow.

<p>T2 images were skull-stripped and normalized to the ICBM T1-weighted template. A transformation matrix was applied to skull-stripped rCBF images with SPM8, to bring them into the same template. ROIs were selected automatically in the lobes and in deep brain structures using the Wake Forest University (WFU) PickAtlas.</p

Comparison of mean CBF values (in mL/100g/min) between control and patient groups.

<p>p value shows level of significance for student’s t-test.</p><p>* and bold font indicates significant difference.</p><p>Comparison of mean CBF values (in mL/100g/min) between control and patient groups.</p

Group differences in SAC scores between controls and mTBI patients.

<p>* p < 0.05.</p