Search

Why study stress? Stress exposure leads to an intricate psychophysiological response (Dhabhar, 2018). Acute or short-term stress, triggered by a challenging external or internal stimulus, influences subjective experience and physiological (e.g., the autonomic and endocrine) systems (Dhabhar, 2018; Lupien et al., 2018; Tsigos et al., 2000). This expansive yet transient shift in the state of the organism is adaptive for an ever-changing environment. However, when stress becomes prolonged or chronic, cognitive, physiological, and behavioural impairments may unfold (Davis et al., 2017; McEwen, 2017). Consequently, chronic stress is an indicator for several psychiatric disorders including depression, anxiety, and psychosis (Davis et al., 2017). Hence, a better understanding of the effects of stress on the brain are important for both healthy and clinical populations. Yet, despite the prevalence and impact of both acute and chronic stress on general health, our understanding of its effects on the brain remains incomplete. How to operationalise stress? To assess the neurobiology of stress, researchers ideally induce an experimentally valid and reliable stressor and stress evaluation measures. The Trier Social Stress Test (TSST) is a widely used and ecologically valid procedure. It induces acute stress through psychological pressure in a social situation: a 5-minute preparation period for a job interview followed by 5 minutes of interviewing and 5 minutes of performing mental arithmetic in front of an evaluation committee (Kirschbaum et al., 1993). On the other hand, chronic stress is typically induced by the lives of people and assessed through self reports. The Trier Inventory of Chronic Stress (TICS) is a questionnaire to quantify chronic stress levels (Schulz & Schlotz, 1999). It includes 57 items and covers nine domains of stress such as “work overload”,” social tension”, or “chronic worrying”. The TICS screening scale is a weighted average of the nine domains, to yield an integrated (i.e., single-value) measurement of chronic stress. What do we know about the brain and stress? Resting-state functional magnetic imaging (rs-fMRI) is a central tool for the investigation of both brain activation and functional connectivity - and of stress-induced changes therein (Fox & Greicius, 2010; Soares et al., 2013). As a non-invasive measure of spontaneous brain activity during rest, rs-fMRI can provide insights into the organisation of functional systems without the presence of an external task (Foster et al., 2016; Raimondo et al., 2021). Both acute and chronic stress can induce brain changes in single regions (Berretz et al., 2021) and inter-regional connectivity in functional networks (Reinelt et al., 2019) as well as the large-scale brain-wide reconfigurations (Wang et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2019). For example, in the framework by Hermans et al. (2014) acute stress exposure results in more resources being allocated to the salience network (SN), which is interpreted as increased emotional reactivity, alertness or vigilance (Hermans et al., 2014). When the acute stress wanes, resources are then shifted back to the executive control network (ECN), associated with higher-order mental processes. Chronic stress, in turn, has been related to decreased connectivity within the ECN and between the SN and ECN, as well as aberrant activity in the DMN in students during the examination period (Massullo et al., 2022; Soares et al., 2013). Similarly, chronic pain, a different type of chronic stress, leads to atypical functional connectivity in the DMN and medial prefrontal cortex (Kucyi & Davis, 2015). Those shifts of activity and connectivity may be linked to altered information processing and disrupted attentional control as adaptation to a stressor (Soares et al., 2013; Zhang et al., 2019). In summary, previous findings indicate widespread stress-related shifts in functional networks and their interactions. Such interactions are suitably investigated in an integrative (i.e., whole-brain and “macroscale”) manner that considers all voxels at once and without regional restrictions. What are gradients? A promising approach to describe macroscale organisation uses multivariate machine learning and dimension reduction to identify different axes of cortical organisation (Margulies et al., 2016). These axes are derived through a decomposition of rs-fMRI data in terms of similarity of functional connectivity networks at every point of measurement of the cortex. Dimension reduction then produces axes of explained variance called “cortical gradients” (Cross et al., 2021; Margulies et al., 2016). Such cortical gradients represent topographical organisation of the brain in a hierarchical manner (Eickhoff et al., 2018). Thus, this data-driven approach allows every point of measurement to be visualised along multiple dimensions of cortical organisation (Bajada et al., 2020; Craddock et al., 2013; Margulies et al., 2016). Differentiation of points of measurement (also called parcels) along one gradient implies dissimilarity in terms of functional connectivity networks and, hence, segregation of their networks. Since every parcel has a position based on the scores of the three gradients we chose to analyse, the position can be interpreted together in a 3D space (the manifold space). Since the manifold space consists of three axes (one per gradient), it has the advantage of all gradients being analysed and visualised simultaneously for every parcel (Park et al., 2021). Further, each datapoint or network isn't fixed along these hierarchies but may change position with age (Bethlehem et al., 2020), states such as sleep deprivation (Cross et al., 2021) or pharmacological intervention (Girn et al., 2021). Typically networks, consisting of multiple parcels, are analysed in terms of the dispersion of their parcels and their dispersion relative to other networks along the gradients (Bethlehem et al., 2020; Cross et al., 2021). Focusing on networks and their relation rather than brain areas allows one to understand the entire brain's response to a change in environment. Why should we use gradients to investigate stress? The analysis of cortical gradients has multiple benefits for the investigation of stress: As stress causes a host of changes in the entire organism and therefore at multiple brain sites, stress-related shifts in neuronal activity and in information processing could be reflected in the gradient changes. For instance, stress has been shown to decrease cognitive flexibility (Cremer et al., 2021), a process which heavily relies on transmodal information processing of the brain. Using gradient analysis, we may be able to capture a shift of the areas involved in cognitive flexibility along the first gradient which typically reflects information processing on a unimodal-multimodal spectrum. Furthermore, stress (both acute and chronic) has been implied to change network balance. Specifically, acute stress can shift the brain into a more integrated state, reducing dispersion between networks (especially in the fronto-parietal regions) and variability of dynamic transitions between states (Zang et al 2022). In this study, we use rs-fMRI data to investigate macroscale functional connectivity (cortical gradients) related to acute and chronic stress. We will focus on three networks: the DMN, ECN, and SN previously implied in stress research (see above) and the related dispersion change along the gradients within and between those networks. This dispersion analysis may aid the understanding of behavioural changes such as vigilance or lack of control of internal thoughts and their link to the underlying cortical processes. The strength of this analysis is that we not only analyse the network independent of each other but also their interplay. In this way, we may understand the brain more as a network than as connected single entities. References Babayan, A., Erbey, M., Kumral, D., Reinelt, J. D., Reiter, A. M. F., Röbbig, J., Schaare, H. L., Uhlig, M., Anwander, A., Bazin, P.-L., Horstmann, A., Lampe, L., Nikulin, V. V., Okon-Singer, H., Preusser, S., Pampel, A., Rohr, C. S., Sacher, J., Thöne-Otto, A., … Villringer, A. (2019). A mind-brain-body dataset of MRI, EEG, cognition, emotion, and peripheral physiology in young and old adults. Scientific Data, 6(1), 180308. https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2018.308 Bajada, C. J., Costa Campos, L. Q., Caspers, S., Muscat, R., Parker, G. J. M., Lambon Ralph, M. A., Cloutman, L. L., & Trujillo-Barreto, N. J. (2020). A tutorial and tool for exploring feature similarity gradients with MRI data. NeuroImage, 221, 117140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.117140 Berretz, G., Packheiser, J., Kumsta, R., Wolf, O. T., & Ocklenburg, S. (2021). The brain under stress—A systematic review and activation likelihood estimation meta-analysis of changes in BOLD signal associated with acute stress exposure. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 124, 89–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2021.01.001 Bethlehem, R. A. I., Paquola, C., Seidlitz, J., Ronan, L., Bernhardt, B., Consortium, C.-C., & Tsvetanov, K. A. (2020). Dispersion of functional gradients across the adult lifespan. NeuroImage, 222, 117299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.117299 Craddock, R. C., Jbabdi, S., Yan, C.-G., Vogelstein, J. T., Castellanos, F. X., Di Martino, A., Kelly, C., Heberlein, K., Colcombe, S., & Milham, M. P. (2013). Imaging human connectomes at the macroscale. Nature Methods, 10(6), 524–539. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.2482 Cremer, A., Kalbe, F., Gläscher, J., & Schwabe, L. (2021). Stress reduces both model-based and model-free neural computations during flexible learning. NeuroImage, 229, 117747. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2021.117747 Cross, N., Paquola, C., Pomares, F. B., Perrault, A. A., Jegou, A., Nguyen, A., Aydin, U., Bernhardt, B. C., Grova, C., & Dang-Vu, T. T. (2021). Cortical gradients of functional connectivity are robust to state-dependent changes following sleep deprivation. NeuroImage, 226, 117547. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.117547 Davis, M. T., Holmes, S. E., Pietrzak, R. H., & Esterlis, I. (2017). Neurobiology of Chronic Stress-Related Psychiatric Disorders: Evidence from Molecular Imaging Studies. Chronic Stress, 1, 2470547017710916. https://doi.org/10.1177/2470547017710916 Dhabhar, F. S. (2018). The Short-Term Stress Response – Mother Nature’s Mechanism for Enhancing Protection and Performance Under Conditions of Threat, Challenge, and Opportunity. Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology, 49, 175–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yfrne.2018.03.004 Eickhoff, S. B., Constable, R. T., & Yeo, B. T. T. (2018). Topographic organization of the cerebral cortex and brain cartography. NeuroImage, 170, 332–347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.02.018 Foster, B. L., He, B. J., Honey, C. J., Jerbi, K., Maier, A., & Saalmann, Y. B. (2016). Spontaneous Neural Dynamics and Multi-scale Network Organization. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, 10. https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fnsys.2016.00007 Fox, M., & Greicius, M. (2010). Clinical applications of resting state functional connectivity. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, 4. https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fnsys.2010.00019 Girn, M., Roseman, L., Bernhardt, B., Smallwood, J., Carhart-Harris, R., & Spreng, R. N. (2021). Serotonergic psychedelic drugs LSD and psilocybin reduce the hierarchical differentiation of unimodal and transmodal cortex (p. 2020.05.01.072314). bioRxiv. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.01.072314 Gorgolewski, K., Burns, C., Madison, C., Clark, D., Halchenko, Y., Waskom, M., & Ghosh, S. (2011). Nipype: A Flexible, Lightweight and Extensible Neuroimaging Data Processing Framework in Python. Frontiers in Neuroinformatics, 5. https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fninf.2011.00013 Hermans, E. J., Henckens, M. J. A. G., Joëls, M., & Fernández, G. (2014). Dynamic adaptation of large-scale brain networks in response to acute stressors. Trends in Neurosciences, 37(6), 304–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tins.2014.03.006 Kirschbaum, C., Pirke, K.-M., & Hellhammer, D. H. (1993). The ’Trier social stress test’—A tool for investigating psychobiological stress responses in a laboratory setting. Neuropsychobiology, 28(1–2), 76–81. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1159/000119004 Kucyi, A., & Davis, K. D. (2015). The dynamic pain connectome. Trends in Neurosciences, 38(2), 86–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tins.2014.11.006 Lupien, S. J., Juster, R.-P., Raymond, C., & Marin, M.-F. (2018). The effects of chronic stress on the human brain: From neurotoxicity, to vulnerability, to opportunity. Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology, 49, 91–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yfrne.2018.02.001 Margulies, D. S., Ghosh, S. S., Goulas, A., Falkiewicz, M., Huntenburg, J. M., Langs, G., Bezgin, G., Eickhoff, S. B., Castellanos, F. X., Petrides, M., Jefferies, E., & Smallwood, J. (2016). Situating the default-mode network along a principal gradient of macroscale cortical organization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(44), 12574–12579. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1608282113 Massullo, C., Bersani, F. S., Carbone, G. A., Panno, A., Farina, B., Murillo-Rodríguez, E., Yamamoto, T., Machado, S., Budde, H., & Imperatori, C. (2022). Decreased Resting State Inter- and Intra-Network Functional Connectivity Is Associated with Perceived Stress in a Sample of University Students: An eLORETA Study. Neuropsychobiology, 81(4), 286–295. https://doi.org/10.1159/000521565 McEwen, B. S. (2017). Neurobiological and Systemic Effects of Chronic Stress. Chronic Stress, 1, 2470547017692328. https://doi.org/10.1177/2470547017692328 Park, B., Bethlehem, R. A., Paquola, C., Larivière, S., Rodríguez-Cruces, R., Vos de Wael, R., Neuroscience in Psychiatry Network (NSPN) Consortium, Bullmore, E. T., & Bernhardt, B. C. (2021). An expanding manifold in transmodal regions characterizes adolescent reconfiguration of structural connectome organization. ELife, 10, e64694. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.64694 Raimondo, L., Oliveira, ĺcaro A. F., Heij, J., Priovoulos, N., Kundu, P., Leoni, R. F., & van der Zwaag, W. (2021). Advances in resting state fMRI acquisitions for functional connectomics. NeuroImage, 243, 118503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2021.118503 Reinelt, J., Uhlig, M., Müller, K., Lauckner, M. E., Kumral, D., Schaare, H. L., Baczkowski, B. M., Babayan, A., Erbey, M., Roebbig, J., Reiter, A., Bae, Y.-J., Kratzsch, J., Thiery, J., Hendler, T., Villringer, A., & Gaebler, M. (2019). Acute psychosocial stress alters thalamic network centrality. NeuroImage, 199, 680–690. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.06.005 Schaefer, A., Kong, R., Gordon, E. M., Laumann, T. O., Zuo, X.-N., Holmes, A. J., Eickhoff, S. B., & Yeo, B. T. T. (2018). Local-Global Parcellation of the Human Cerebral Cortex from Intrinsic Functional Connectivity MRI. Cerebral Cortex, 28(9), 3095–3114. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhx179 Schulz, P., & Schlotz, W. (1999). Trierer Inventar zur Erfassung von chronischem Streß (TICS): Skalenkonstruktion, teststatistische Überprüfung und Validierung der Skala Arbeitsüberlastung. Diagnostica, 45(1), 8–19. https://doi.org/10.1026//0012-1924.45.1.8 Soares, J. M., Sampaio, A., Ferreira, L. M., Santos, N. C., Marques, P., Marques, F., Palha, J. A., Cerqueira, J. J., & Sousa, N. (2013). Stress Impact on Resting State Brain Networks. PLOS ONE, 8(6), e66500. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0066500 Thomas Yeo, B. T., Krienen, F. M., Sepulcre, J., Sabuncu, M. R., Lashkari, D., Hollinshead, M., Roffman, J. L., Smoller, J. W., Zöllei, L., Polimeni, J. R., Fischl, B., Liu, H., & Buckner, R. L. (2011). The organization of the human cerebral cortex estimated by intrinsic functional connectivity. Journal of Neurophysiology, 106(3), 1125–1165. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00338.2011 Tsigos, C., Kyrou, I., Kassi, E., & Chrousos, G. P. (2000). Stress: Endocrine Physiology and Pathophysiology. In K. R. Feingold, B. Anawalt, A. Boyce, G. Chrousos, W. W. de Herder, K. Dhatariya, K. Dungan, J. M. Hershman, J. Hofland, S. Kalra, G. Kaltsas, C. Koch, P. Kopp, M. Korbonits, C. S. Kovacs, W. Kuohung, B. Laferrère, M. Levy, E. A. McGee, … D. P. Wilson (Eds.), Endotext. MDText.com, Inc. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK278995/ Wang, R., Zhen, S., Zhou, C., & Yu, R. (2022). Acute stress promotes brain network integration and reduces state transition variability. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(24), e2204144119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2204144119 Zhang, W., Hashemi, M. M., Kaldewaij, R., Koch, S. B. J., Beckmann, C., Klumpers, F., & Roelofs, K. (2019). Acute stress alters the ‘default’ brain processing. NeuroImage, 189, 870–877. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.01.063