4.5 Article

Age-related dedifferentiation and compensatory changes in the functional network underlying face processing

期刊

NEUROBIOLOGY OF AGING
卷 34, 期 12, 页码 2759-2767

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2013.06.016

关键词

Aging; Face processing; fMRI; Dedifferentiation; Compensation

资金

  1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research [MOP106301]
  2. Canada Research Chairs program
  3. Ontario Research Fund
  4. Canadian Foundation for Innovation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent evidence has shown that older adults fail to show adaptation in the right fusiform gyrus (FG) to the same face presented repeatedly, despite accurate detection of the previously presented face. We used functional magnetic resonance imaging to investigate whether this phenomenon is associated with age-related reductions in face specificity in brain activity and whether older adults compensate for these face-processing deficiencies by increasing activity in other areas within the face-processing network, or outside this network. A comparison of brain activity across multiple stimulus categories showed that, unlike young adults who engaged a number of brain regions specific to face processing, older adults generalized these patterns of activity to objects and houses. Also, young adults showed functional connectivity between the right FG and its homologous region during face processing, whereas older adults did not engage the left FG but showed a functional connection between the right FG and left orbitofrontal cortex. Finally, this frontotemporal functional connection was activated more strongly in older adults who performed better on a face-matching task (done outside of the scanner), suggesting increased involvement of this functional link for successful face recognition with increasing age. These findings suggest that 2 neural mechanisms, dedifferentiation and compensatory neural recruitment, underlie age differences in face processing. (C) 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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