4.7 Article

Age effects on the P300 potential and the corresponding fMRI BOLD-signal

Journal

NEUROIMAGE
Volume 60, Issue 4, Pages 2027-2034

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.02.019

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Age has been reported to influence amplitude and latency of the P300 potential. Nevertheless, it is not yet fully understood which brain regions are responsible for these effects. The aim of this study was to investigate age-effects on the P300 potential and the simultaneously acquired BOLD signal of functional MRI. 32 healthy male subjects were investigated using an auditory oddball paradigm. The functional fMRI data were acquired in temporal synchrony to the task. The evoked potential data were recorded during the intervals in between MR image acquisitions in order to reduce the influence of the scanner noise on the presentation of the tones and to reduce gradient artifacts. The age-effects were calculated by means of regression analyses. In addition, brain regions modulated by the task-induced amplitude variation of the P300 were identified (single trial analysis). The results indicated an age effect on the P300 amplitude. Younger subjects demonstrated increased parietal P300 amplitudes and increased BOLD responses in a network of brain regions including the anterior and posterior cingulate cortex, the insula, the temporo-parietal junction, the superior temporal gyrus, the caudate body, the amygdala and the parahippocampal gyrus. Single trial coupling of EEG and fMRI indicated that P300 amplitudes were predominantly associated with neural response:; in the anterior cingulate cortex, the putamen and temporal brain areas. Taken together, the results indicate diminished neural responses in older compared to younger subjects especially in frontal, temporo-parietal and subcortical brain regions. (C) 2012 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