4.8 Article

Unmasking selective path integration deficits in Alzheimer's disease risk carriers

期刊

SCIENCE ADVANCES
卷 6, 期 35, 页码 -

出版社

AMER ASSOC ADVANCEMENT SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.aba1394

关键词

-

资金

  1. BMBF [01GQ1705A]
  2. NIH [563386]
  3. NSF [BCS-1724243]
  4. NIH/NINDS [U01 NS1113198-01]
  5. BrainLinks-BrainTools Cluster of Excellence - German Research Foundation (DFG) [EXC 1086]
  6. Emma and Ernesto Rulfo Foundation for Medical Genetics
  7. Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness [SAF2017-85310-R, PSI2017-85311-P]
  8. Regional Ministry of Innovation, Science and Enterprise, Junta de Andalucia [P12-CTS-2327]
  9. International Center on Aging CENIE-POCTEP [0348_CIE_6_E]
  10. CIBERNED
  11. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) [316803389 -SFB 1280, 122679504 -SFB 874, AX 82/3]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Alzheimer's disease (AD) manifests with progressive memory loss and spatial disorientation. Neuropathological studies suggest early AD pathology in the entorhinal cortex (EC) of young adults at genetic risk for AD (APOE epsilon 4-carriers). Because the EC harbors grid cells, a likely neural substrate of path integration (PI), we examined PI performance in APOE epsilon 4-carriers during a virtual navigation task. We report a selective impairment in APOE epsilon 4-carriers specifically when recruitment of compensatory navigational strategies via supportive spatial cues was disabled. A separate fMRI study revealed that PI performance was associated with the strength of entorhinal grid-like representations when no compensatory strategies were available, suggesting grid cell dysfunction as a mechanistic explanation for PI deficits in APOE epsilon 4-carriers. Furthermore, posterior cingulate/retrosplenial cortex was involved in the recruitment of compensatory navigational strategies via supportive spatial cues. Our results provide evidence for selective PI deficits in AD risk carriers, decades before potential disease onset.

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

4.8
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