4.6 Article

The effects of aging on the neural correlates of subjective and objective recollection

Journal

CEREBRAL CORTEX
Volume 18, Issue 9, Pages 2169-2180

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/cercor/bhm243

Keywords

aging; familiarity; fMRI; frontal; recollection

Categories

Funding

  1. Medical Research Council
  2. Alzheimer's Research Trust
  3. Medical Research Council [MC_U105579226, MC_U105579221] Funding Source: researchfish
  4. MRC [MC_U105579226, MC_U105579221] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

High-functioning older adults can exhibit normal recollection when measured subjectively, via remember judgments, but not when measured objectively, via source judgments, whereas low-functioning older adults exhibit impairments for both measures. A potential explanation for this is that typical subjective and objective tests of recollection necessitate different processing demands, supported by distinct brain regions, and that deficits in these tests are observed according to the degree of age-related changes in these regions. Here, we used event-related functional magnetic resonance imaging to measure the effects of aging on neural correlates of subjective and objective measures of recollection, in young, high-functioning (Old-High) and low-functioning (Old-Low) older adults. Behaviorally, the Old-High group showed intact subjective (remember judgments) but impaired objective recollection (for 1 of 2 spatial or temporal sources), whereas the Old-Low group was impaired on both measures. Imaging data showed changes in parietal subjective recollection effects in the Old-Low group and in lateral frontal objective recollection effects in both older adult groups. Our results highlight the importance of examining performance variability in older adults and suggest that differential effects of aging on brain regions are associated with different patterns of performance on tests of subjective and objective recollection.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available