4.5 Article

Macro- and micro-structural white matter differences correlate with cognitive performance in healthy aging

期刊

BRAIN IMAGING AND BEHAVIOR
卷 10, 期 1, 页码 168-181

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11682-015-9378-4

关键词

Diffusion tensor imaging; Aging; Cognitive performance; White matter; Tract-based spatial statistics

资金

  1. SwitchBox-FP7-HEALTH-grant [259772-2]
  2. Portuguese North Regional Operational Program (ON.2 - O Novo Norte) under National Strategic Reference Framework (QREN) through European Regional Development Fund (FEDER)
  3. Switchbox fellowships
  4. FCT/MEC [FCT-ANR/NEU-OSD/0258/2012]
  5. FEDER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Studies have shown that white matter (WM) volumetric reductions and overall degradation occur with aging. Nonetheless little is known about the WM alterations that may underlie different cognitive status in older individuals. The main goal of the present work was to identify and characterize possible macro and microstructural WM alterations that could distinguish between older healthy individuals with contrasting cognitive profiles (i.e., poor vs good cognitive performers). Structural and diffusion magnetic resonance imaging was performed in order to quantify local WM volumes, white matter signal abnormalities (WMSA) volume (a measure of lesion burden) and diffusion tensor imaging scalar maps known to probe WM microstructure. A battery of neurocognitive/psychological tests was administered to assess the cognitive performance. Poor performers showed a higher slope for the positive association between WMSA volume and age compared to good performers. Even when controlling for WMSA volume, poor performers also evidenced lower fractional anisotropy, as well as positive associations with age with higher slopes of regression parameters in radial and axial diffusivity. Altogether results suggest that cognitive performance is related to differences in WM, with poor cognitive performers displaying signs of faster aging in WM.

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