Demographic characteristics
The demographic characteristics of all the participants in each group are analyzed and summarized in Table 1. There were no significant differences (P༞0.05) in age, years of education, BMI, blood pressure, sleep quality between the two groups. Hong Chuan Tai Chi practitioners scored higher in MoCA than healthy Tai Chi-naïve controls (P < 0.001).
Table 1
| Tai Chi(n = 18) | Control(n = 22) | P |
Age(year) | 55.78 ± 2.64 | 54.69 ± 3.10 | 0.401 |
BMI (kg/m2) | 22.10 ± 0.61 | 22.27 ± 0.68 | 0.556 |
Education(year) | 12.67 ± 2.00 | 12.00 ± 2.12 | 0.467 |
Tai Chi Practice(year) | 4.61 ± 0.89 | NA | NA |
Duration(hour/w) | 13.89 ± 1.62 | NA | NA |
Right-handed | 18 | 22 | NA |
Systolic pressure(mmHg) | 116.00 ± 7.38 | 120.85 ± 6.79 | 0.128 |
Diastolic pressure(mmHg) | 73.89 ± 3.48 | 76.61 ± 5.38 | 0.197 |
Sleep quality (PQSI) | 3.61 ± 0.78 | 3.82 ± 0.85 | 0.432 |
Global cognitive function (MoCA) | 28.06 ± 0.64 | 26.27 ± 1.2 | 0.000 |
NA: Not Available |
Wavelet Phase Coherence Analysis
Compared with Tai Chi-naïve controls, in interval I, Hong Chuan Tai Chi practitioners had higher WPCO values of LPFC-LMC (TC = 0.59, C = 0.40, t = 4.72, P < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 1.54, large), LPFC-LOC(TC = 0.60, C = 0.39, t = 5.32, P < 0.001,Cohen’s d = 1.78, large), LMC-LOC(TC = 0.53, C = 0.43, t = 2.08, P < 0.05, Cohen’s d = 0.76, moderate) in the left hemisphere; and had higher WPCO values of RPFC-RMC(TC = 0.60, C = 0.37, t = 5.80, P < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 1.91, large), RPFC-ROC(TC = 0.55, C = 0.40, t = 3.19, P < 0.01,Cohen’s d = 1.12, moderate) in the right hemisphere. In addition, Hong Chuan Tai Chi practitioners had higher WPCO values of LPFC-RPFC(TC = 0.78, C = 0.44, t = 14.35, P < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 4.67, very large), LPFC-RMC(TC = 0.60, C = 0.38, t = 5.59, P < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 1.87, large), LPFC-ROC(TC = 0.55, C = 0.40, t = 3.39, P < 0.01, Cohen’s d = 1.16, moderate), RPFC-LMC(TC = 0.59, C = 0.39, t = 4.57, P < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 1.57, large), RPFC-LOC(TC = 0.60, C = 0.38, t = 5.57, P < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 1.87, large), LMC-RMC(TC = 0.53, C = 0.42, t = 2.09, P < 0.05, Cohen’s d = 0.72, moderate), LOC-RMC(TC = 0.53, C = 0.42, t = 2.32, P < 0.05, Cohen’s d = 0.77, moderate) between the two hemispheres than those of Tai Chi-naïve controls.
As shown in Figure.3, compared with Tai Chi-naïve controls, Hong Chuan Tai Chi practitioners had higher WPCO values of LPFC-RPFC (TC = 0.48, C = 0.38, t = 2.14, P < 0.05, Cohen’s d = 0.72, moderate), and there was no significant difference between other brain regions in interval II.
Figure.4 indicate that in interval III, Hong Chuan Tai Chi practitioners had higher WPCO values of LMC-LOC (TC = 0.47, C = 0.38, t = 2.37, P < 0.05, Cohen’s d = 0.76, moderate) and RPFC-RMC (TC = 0.49, C = 0.37, t = 3.16, P < 0.01, Cohen’s d = 1.0, moderate) than Tai Chi-naïve controls in the left and right hemisphere, respectively. In addition, Hong Chuan Tai Chi practitioners had higher WPCO values of LPFC-RPFC(TC = 0.63, C = 0.39, t = 7.05, P < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 2.26, very large), LMC-RMC(TC = 0.60, C = 0.38, t = 6.05, P < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 1.99, large), LOC-RMC (TC = 0.47, C = 0.39, t = 2.04, P < 0.05, Cohen’s d = 0.70, moderate), LOC-ROC(TC = 0.50, C = 0.40, t = 2.26, P < 0.05, Cohen’s d = 0.74, moderate) between the two hemispheres than Tai Chi-naïve controls.
Figure. 5 shows the comparison of WPCO values between the Hong Chuan Tai Chi group and the Control group in interval IV. Compared with Tai Chi-naïve controls, Hong Chuan Tai Chi practitioners had higher WPCO values of LPFC-LMC(TC = 0.46, C = 0.37, t = 2.33, P < 0.05, Cohen’s d = 0.73, moderate), LMC-LOC (TC = 0.44, C = 0.36, t = 2.07, P < 0.05,Cohen’s d = 0.67, moderate) in the left hemisphere and higher WPCO values of RPFC-RMC (TC = 0.47, C = 0.36, t = 2.61, P < 0.05, Cohen’s d = 0.90, moderate) in the right hemisphere. In addition, Hong ChuanTai Chi practitioners had higher WPCO values of LPFC-RPFC(TC = 0.59, C = 0.37, t = 5.42, P < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 1.78, large), LMC-RMC (TC = 0.55, C = 0.36, t = 5.39, P < 0.001༌Cohen’s d = 1.76, large), LOC-RMC(TC = 0.43, C = 0.35, t = 2.29, P < 0.05, Cohen’s d = 0.72, moderate), LOC-ROC(TC = 0.45, C = 0.36, t = 2.25, P < 0.05, Cohen’s d = 0.76, moderate) between the two hemispheres compared with Tai Chi-naïve controls.
As Figure. 6 showed, in interval V, compared with Tai Chi-naïve controls, Hong Chuan Tai Chi practitioners had higher WPCO values of LPFC-LMC(TC = 0.48, C = 0.35, t = 3.67, P < 0.01, Cohen’s d = 1.24, large), LMC-LOC(TC = 0.48, C = 0.38, t = 2.97, P < 0.01, Cohen’s d = 1.0, moderate) in the left hemisphere and higher WPCO values of RPFC-RMC(TC = 0.49, C = 0.39, t = 3.26, P < 0.01, Cohen’s d = 1.04, moderate), RMC-ROC(TC = 0.48, C = 0.41, t = 2.31, P < 0.05, Cohen’s d = 0.74, moderate) in the right hemisphere. In addition, Tai chi practitioners had higher WPCO values of LPFC-RPFC(TC = 0.62, C = 0.36, t = 6.92, P < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 2.33, very large), LPFC-RMC(TC = 0.48, C = 0.38, t = 3.25, P < 0.01, Cohen’s d = 1.11, moderate), LMC-RMC(TC = 0.55, C = 0.34, t = 6.18, P < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 2.18, very large), LOC-RMC(TC = 0.48, C = 0.36, t = 3.61, P < 0.01, Cohen’s d = 1.19, moderate), LOC-ROC(TC = 0.53, C = 0.39, t = 3.56, P < 0.01, Cohen’s d = 1.21, large) between the two hemispheres than that of Tai Chi-naïve controls.