4.5 Article

Evidence for an association between allostatic load and multisensory integration in middle-aged and older adults

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.archger.2023.105155

关键词

Ageing; Allostatic load; Multisensory; Sound-induced flash illusion; Audio-visual

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the impact of allostatic load on multisensory integration, using a Sound Induced Flash Illusion (SIFI) task. The results revealed that higher allostatic load was associated with lower accuracy in multisensory integration.
Multisensory integration, the ability of the brain to integrate information from different sensory modalities, is critical for responding to environmental stimuli. While older adults show changes in multisensory integration with age, the impact of allostatic load (AL) (i.e., the effect of exposure to chronic stress, which can accelerate ageing) on multisensory perception remains understudied. We explored the relationship between multisensory integration and AL in 1,358 adults aged 50+ from The Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing by performing a Sound Induced Flash Illusion (SIFI) task at multiple audio-visual temporal asynchronies. The AL score was created using a battery of biomarkers representing the activity of four major physiological systems: immunological, cardiovascular, metabolic, and renal. The number of biomarkers for which a participant was categorised in the highest risk quartile using sex-specific cutoffs was used to produce an overall AL score. We accounted for medication use when calculating our AL score. We analysed the accuracy of illusion trials on a SIFI task using generalised logistic mixed effects regression models adjusted for a number of covariates. Observation of cross-sectional and longitudinal results revealed that lower accuracy in integration (i.e., higher SIFI susceptibility with larger temporal asynchronies) was associated with higher AL. This confirmed the distinct patterns of multisensory integration in ageing.

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