4.5 Article

Paradoxical cognitive trajectories in men from earlier to later adulthood

期刊

NEUROBIOLOGY OF AGING
卷 109, 期 -, 页码 229-238

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2021.10.002

关键词

General cognitive ability; Cognitive aging; Dementia; Longitudinal studies; Neuropsychology

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health National Institute on Aging [R01 AG022381, R01 AG050595, R01 AG022982, R01 AG062483, R01 AG056410, R01 AG059329, F31 AG064834, P01 AG055367]
  2. National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences [KL2 TR001444]
  3. Center of Excellence for Stress and Mental Health
  4. VA San Diego Healthcare System

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that higher young adult GCA and better maintenance of GCA were associated with stronger specific cognitive abilities, and that high young adult GCA still conferred benefits even with poorer maintenance.
Because longitudinal studies of aging typically lack cognitive data from earlier ages, it is unclear how general cognitive ability (GCA) changes throughout the life course. In 1173 Vietnam Era Twin Study of Aging (VETSA) participants, we assessed young adult GCA at average age 20 and current GCA at 3 VETSA assessments beginning at average age 56. The same GCA index was used throughout. Higher young adult GCA and better GCA maintenance were associated with stronger specific cognitive abilities from age 51 to 73. Given equivalent GCA at age 56, individuals who had higher age 20 GCA outperformed those whose GCA remained stable in terms of memory, executive function, and working memory abilities from age 51 to 73. Thus, paradoxically, despite poorer maintenance of GCA, high young adult GCA still conferred benefits. Advanced predicted brain age and the combination of elevated vascular burden and APOE-epsilon 4 status were associated with poorer maintenance of GCA. These findings highlight the importance of dis-tinguishing between peak and current GCA for greater understanding of cognitive aging. Published by Elsevier Inc.

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