4.7 Article

Processing speed is correlated with cerebral health markers in the frontal lobes as quantified by neuroimaging

Journal

NEUROIMAGE
Volume 49, Issue 2, Pages 1190-1199

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.09.052

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Biciengineering [K01 EB006395]
  2. NIMH
  3. NIDA [P20 MH/DA52176]
  4. General Clinical Research Core [HSC19940074H]
  5. San Antonio Area Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We explored relationships between decline in cognitive processing speed (CPS) and change in frontal lobe MRI/MRS-based indices of cerebral integrity in 38 healthy adults (age 57-90 years). CPS was assessed using a battery of four timed neuropsychological tests: Grooved Pegboard, Coding, Symbol Digit Modalities Test and Category Fluency (Fruits and Furniture). The neuro psychological tests were factor analyzed to extract two components of CPS: psychomotor (PM) and psychophysical (PP). MRI-based indices of cerebral integrity included three cortical measurements per hemisphere (CM thickness, intergyral and sulcal spans) and two subcortical indices (fractional anisotropy (FA), measured using track-based spatial statistics (TBSS), and the volume of hyperintense WM (HWM)). MRS indices included levels of choline-containing compounds (GPC + PC), phosphocreatine plus creatine (PCr + Cr), and N-acetylaspartate (NAA), measured bilaterally in the frontal WM bundles. A substantial fraction of the variance in the PM-CPS (58%) was attributed to atrophic changes in frontal WM, observed as increases in sulcal span, declines in FA values and reductions in concentrations of NAA and choline-containing compounds. A smaller proportion (20%) of variance in the PP-CPS could be explained by bilateral increases in frontal sulcal span and increases in HWM volumes. (C) 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available