4.6 Article

Individual differences in age-related neurocognitive outcomes: within-subject assessment of memory for odors

期刊

FRONTIERS IN AGING NEUROSCIENCE
卷 15, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fnagi.2023.1238444

关键词

cognitive aging; recognition memory; spatial memory; medial temporal lobe; odor recognition memory

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cognitive decline is common in aging, especially in memory domains supported by the medial temporal lobe. Identifying intervention strategies is challenging due to variability between individuals. Aged Long-Evans rats have been useful for studying age-related memory decline. The study aimed to test if impairments in water maze learning could predict delayed recognition memory impairments in these rats.
Cognitive decline is a common feature of aging, particularly in memory domains supported by the medial temporal lobe (MTL). The ability to identify intervention strategies to treat or prevent this decline is challenging due to substantial variability between adults in terms of age of onset, rate and severity of decline, and many factors that could influence cognitive reserve. These factors can be somewhat mitigated by use of within-subject designs. Aged outbred Long-Evans rats have proven useful for identifying translationally relevant substrates contributing to age-related decline in MTL-dependent memory. In this population, some animals show reliable impairment on MTL-dependent tasks while others perform within the range of young adult rats. However, currently there are relatively few within-subject behavior protocols for assessing MTL function over time, and most require extensive training and appetitive motivation for associative learning. In the current study, we aimed to test whether water maze learning impairments in aged Long-Evans rats would be predictive of delayed recognition memory impairments and whether these odor memory impairments would be stable within subjects over multiple rounds of testing.

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

4.6
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