4.2 Article

Gray matter correlates of set-shifting among neurodegenerative disease, mild cognitive impairment, and healthy older adults

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S1355617710000408

关键词

D-KEFS; Design fluency; Trail making test; Color word interference; Executive function; Voxel-based morphometry

资金

  1. National Institute on Aging (NIA) [R01-AG022538, R01-AG010897, K01-AG034175-01, K23-AG0300601, P01-AG1972403, P50-AG0300601]
  2. John D. French Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There is increasing recognition that set-shifting, a form of cognitive control, is mediated by different neural structures. However, these regions have not yet been carefully identified as many studies do not account for the influence of component processes (e.g., motor speed). We investieated gray matter correlates of set-shifting while controlling for component processes. Using the Design Fluency (DE), Trail Making Test (TMT), and Color Word Interference (CWI) subtests from the Delis-Kaplan Executive Function System (D-KEFS), we investigated the correlation between set-shifting performance and gray matter volume in 160 subjects with neurodegenerative disease, mild cognitive impairment, and healthy older adults using voxel-based morphometry. All three set-shifting tasks correlated with multiple, widespread gray matter regions. After controlling for the component processes, set-shifting performance correlated with focal regions in prefrontal and posterior parietal cortices. We also identified bilateral prefrontal cortex and the right posterior parietal lobe as common sites for set-shifting across the three tasks. There was a high degree of multicollinearity between the set-shifting conditions and the component processes of TMT and CWI, suggesting DF may better isolate set-shifting regions. Overall, these findings highlight the neuroanatomical correlates of set-shifting and the importance of controlling for component processes when investigating complex cognitive tasks. (JINS, 2010, 16, 640-650.)

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

4.2
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