Scholarlink

<p>Circadian robustness is usually cast on a single weak–strong continuum, but multi-system data suggest a different picture. We followed 52 healthy young adults for ~30 days with wearable locomotor (accelerometry; ACC) and autonomic (heart rate; BPM) signals and paired these with structural and resting-state fMRI. From person-level circadian feature vectors (stability, amplitude, acrophase, and ACC–BPM alignment/lag), we uncovered a Control–Salience axis of brain–body organization. A control-anchored archetype showed ACC-dominant rhythms—higher activity stability and amplitude, later BPM acrophase, and a longer ACC → BPM phase lead—together with stronger connectivity in cognitive control networks. A complementary salience-anchored archetype exhibited BPM-dominant rhythms—earlier BPM acrophase, higher BPM relative amplitude, tighter ACC–BPM coupling—and stronger connectivity in salience and attention networks. Across individuals, cross-system alignment (ACC–BPM lag) tracked control-network coherence, whereas rhythm timing and amplitude related selectively to cortical geometry and network strength. These findings recast circadian health as axis-based and system-specific: individuals organize along a spectrum from stability-anchored, locomotor-led profiles to coupling-anchored, autonomic-dominated profiles with distinct neural correlates. The Control–Salience axis refines mechanistic models of circadian risk and points to alignment-aware, network-targeted strategies for monitoring and intervention.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Control vs. salience: a new axis of circadian brain-body organization

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年2月16日

查看全文
  • Olivier Demers,
  • Sanaz Ghaffari,
  • Chen Li,
  • Russell Butler

摘要

Circadian robustness is usually cast on a single weak–strong continuum, but multi-system data suggest a different picture. We followed 52 healthy young adults for ~30 days with wearable locomotor (accelerometry; ACC) and autonomic (heart rate; BPM) signals and paired these with structural and resting-state fMRI. From person-level circadian feature vectors (stability, amplitude, acrophase, and ACC–BPM alignment/lag), we uncovered a Control–Salience axis of brain–body organization. A control-anchored archetype showed ACC-dominant rhythms—higher activity stability and amplitude, later BPM acrophase, and a longer ACC → BPM phase lead—together with stronger connectivity in cognitive control networks. A complementary salience-anchored archetype exhibited BPM-dominant rhythms—earlier BPM acrophase, higher BPM relative amplitude, tighter ACC–BPM coupling—and stronger connectivity in salience and attention networks. Across individuals, cross-system alignment (ACC–BPM lag) tracked control-network coherence, whereas rhythm timing and amplitude related selectively to cortical geometry and network strength. These findings recast circadian health as axis-based and system-specific: individuals organize along a spectrum from stability-anchored, locomotor-led profiles to coupling-anchored, autonomic-dominated profiles with distinct neural correlates. The Control–Salience axis refines mechanistic models of circadian risk and points to alignment-aware, network-targeted strategies for monitoring and intervention.