4.5 Article

Default network interactivity during mentalizing about known others is modulated by age and social closeness

期刊

SOCIAL COGNITIVE AND AFFECTIVE NEUROSCIENCE
卷 15, 期 5, 页码 537-549

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/scan/nsaa067

关键词

aging; social cognition; mental representations; default network; fMRI; functional connectivity; dedifferentiation; default-executive coupling; DECHA

资金

  1. NIH [AG057764, 1S10RR025145]
  2. Canadian Institutes of Health Research
  3. Fonds de la Recherche du Quebec-Sante

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In young adults, mentalizing about known others engages the default network, with differential brain response modulated by social closeness. While the functional integrity of the default network changes with age, few studies have investigated how these changes impact the representation of known others, across levels of closeness. Young (N = 29, 16 females) and older (N = 27, 12 females) adults underwent functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) scanning while making trait judgments for social others varying in closeness. Multivariate analyses (partial least squares) identified default network activation for trait judgments across both age cohorts. For young adults, romantic partner and self-judgments differed from other levels of social closeness and were associated with activity in default and salience networks. In contrast, default network interactivity was not modulated by social closeness for older adults. In two functional connectivity analyses, both age groups demonstrated connectivity between dorsal and ventral medial prefrontal cortex and other default network regions during trait judgments. However older, but not young, adults also showed increased functional coupling between medial and lateral prefrontal brain regions that did not vary by category of known other. Mentalizing about others engages default and frontal brain regions in older adulthood, and this coupling is poorly modulated by social closeness.

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