4.5 Article

The Age-related Neural Strategy Alterations in Decision Making Under Risk

期刊

NEUROSCIENCE
卷 440, 期 -, 页码 30-38

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2020.05.017

关键词

decision making; aging; dynamic causal modeling; effective connectivity; compensation

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31971007, 71942004, 6191101096, 31971028]
  2. Ministry of Education of Humanities and Social Science [17YJA190015]
  3. CAS Key Laboratory of Mental Health, Institute of Psychology [KLMH2019K02]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Previous studies have shown that aging is associated with changes in decision behavior. However, the neural mechanisms that underpin such age differences are inadequately understood. In this study, we aim to characterize the optimal neural model underlying a dynamic decision making task in both young and older adults, and further examine the age differences from the perspective of effective connectivity. Twenty-five young and 23 older adults performed a dynamic risk taking task, i.e., the balloon analogue risk task, in the functional magnetic resonance imaging scanner. The dynamic causal modeling analysis, with the coupling between the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (VMPFC), dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) and anterior insula (AI) that were identified in our task-related activation and psychophysiological interaction analysis, was performed to address the best fitting neural model and characterize age differences. Although both age groups adopted the same optimal model with bidirectional connection between the VMPFC and DLPFC, older adults exhibited up-regulation in several connections and among which the increased modulatory effect of AI-to-VMPFC subserving their decision quality. Our finding suggests that older adults might utilize different neural strategy via compensation to counteract the impact of advanced age in risk taking process. (C) 2020 IBRO. Published by Elsevier Ltd. 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