4.5 Article

The Cognitive Reserve Hypothesis: A Longitudinal Examination of Age-Associated Declines in Reasoning and Processing Speed

Journal

DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY
Volume 45, Issue 2, Pages 431-446

Publisher

AMER PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1037/a0014012

Keywords

cognitive reserve; brain reserve; education; cognitive decline; aging

Funding

  1. NIA NIH HHS [T32 AG020500, U01AG14260, U01 AG014282, U01AG14282, P60 AG008812-15S2, U01 AG014263, U01 AG014276, U01AG14263, U01 AG014260, U01AG14276, P60AG008812, T32AG020500, U01 AG014289, U01AG14289, T32 AG023480, P60 AG008812] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NINR NIH HHS [U01NR04507, U01 NR004507, U01NR04508, U01 NR004508] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The term cognitive reserve is frequently used to refer to the ubiquitous finding that, during later life, those higher in experiential resources (e.g., education, knowledge) exhibit higher levels of cognitive function. This observation may be the result or either experiential resources playing protective roles with respect to the cognitive declines associated with aging or the persistence of differences in functioning that have existed since earlier adulthood. These possibilities were examined by applying accelerated longitudinal structural equation (growth curve) models to 5-year reasoning and speed data from the no-contact control group (N = 690; age 65 89 years at baseline) of the Advanced Cognitive Training for Independent and Vital Elderly study. Vocabulary knowledge and years of education, as markers of cognitive reserve, were related to levels of cognitive functioning, but unrelated to rates of cognitive change, both before and after the (negative) relations between levels and rates were controlled for. These results suggest that cognitive reserve reflects the persistence of carlier differences in cognitive functioning rather than differential rates of age-associated cognitive declines.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available