Abstract
The mechanisms that underpin recovery following mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) remain poorly understood. Identifying neurophysiological markers and their functional significance is necessary to develop diagnostic and prognostic indicators of recovery. The current study assessed 30 participants in the subacute phase of mTBI (10-31 days post-injury) and 28 demographically matched controls. Participants also completed 3 month (mTBI: N = 21, control: N = 25) and 6 month (mTBI: N = 15, control: N = 25) follow up sessions to track recovery. At each time point, a battery of clinical, cognitive, and neurophysiological assessments was completed. Neurophysiological measures included resting-state electroencephalography (EEG) and transcranial magnetic stimulation combined with EEG (TMS-EEG). Outcome measures were analysed using mixed linear models (MLM). Group differences in mood, post-concussion symptoms and resting-state EEG resolved by 3 months, and recovery was maintained at 6 months. On TMS-EEG derived neurophysiological measures of cortical reactivity, group differences ameliorated at 3 months but re-emerged at 6 months, while on measures of fatigue, group differences persisted across all time points. Persistent neurophysiological changes and greater fatigue in the absence of measurable cognitive impairment may suggest the impact of mTBI on neuronal communication may leads to increased neural effort to maintain efficient function. Neurophysiological measures to track recovery may help identify both temporally optimal windows and therapeutic targets for the development of new treatments in mTBI.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work was supported by an Australian Postgraduate Award Scholarship (HLC) and a National Health and Medical Research Council Fellowship (1135558) (KEH).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Ethics Committees of both Alfred Health and Monash University gave ethical approval for this work.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
We do not have ethical approval to make this data publicly available, as our approval predated our inclusion of such approvals (which we now do routinely).
