4.7 Article

The Importance of Being Variable

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE
卷 31, 期 12, 页码 4496-4503

出版社

SOC NEUROSCIENCE
DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5641-10.2011

关键词

-

资金

  1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research [MOP14036, MOP13026]
  2. JS McDonnell Foundation
  3. Canada Research Chairs program
  4. Ontario Research Fund
  5. Canadian Foundation for Innovation
  6. IODE (Imperial Order Daughters of the Empire)
  7. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
  8. Alberta Scholarship Programs
  9. Soroptimist International of Toronto
  10. Rotman Research Institute, Baycrest

向作者/读者索取更多资源

New work suggests that blood oxygen level-dependent (BOLD) signal variability can be a much more powerful index of human age than meanactivation, and that older brains are actually less variable than younger brains. However, little is known of how BOLD variability and task performance may relate. In the current study, we examined BOLD variability in relation to age, and reaction time speed and consistency in healthy younger (20-30 years) and older (56-85 years) adults on three cognitive tasks (perceptual matching, attentional cueing, and delayed match-to-sample). Results indicated that younger, faster, and more consistent performers exhibited significantly higher brain variability across tasks, and showed greater variability-based regional differentiation compared with older, poorer-performing adults. Also, when we compared brain variability- and typical mean-based effects, the respective spatial patterns were essentially orthogonal across brain measures, and any regions that did overlap were largely opposite in directionality of effect. These findings help establish the functional basis of BOLD variability, and further support the statistical and spatial differentiation between BOLD variability and BOLD mean. We thus argue that the precise nature of relations between aging, cognition, and brain function is underappreciated by using mean-based brain measures exclusively.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据