4.7 Article

Does hippocampal volume explain performance differences on hippocampal-dependant tasks?

期刊

NEUROIMAGE
卷 221, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.117211

关键词

Hippocampal volume; Scene construction; Autobiographical memory; Future thinking; Spatial navigation; Individual differences

资金

  1. Wellcome Principal Research Fellowship [101759/Z/13/Z]
  2. Wellcome [203147/Z/16/Z]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Marked disparities exist across healthy individuals in their ability to imagine scenes, recall autobiographical memories, think about the future and navigate in the world. The importance of the hippocampus in supporting these critical cognitive functions has prompted the question of whether differences in hippocampal grey matter volume could be one source of performance variability. Evidence to date has been somewhat mixed. In this study we sought to mitigate issues that commonly affect these types of studies. Data were collected from a large sample of 217 young, healthy adult participants, including whole brain structural MRI data (0.8 mm isotropic voxels) and widely-varying performance on scene imagination, autobiographical memory, future thinking and navigation tasks. We found little evidence that hippocampal grey matter volume was related to task performance in this healthy sample. This was the case using different analysis methods (voxel-based morphometry, partial correlations), when whole brain or hippocampal regions of interest were examined, when comparing different sub-groups (divided by gender, task performance, self-reported ability), and when using latent variables derived from across the cognitive tasks. Hippocampal grey matter volume may not, therefore, significantly influence performance on tasks known to require the hippocampus in healthy people. Perhaps only in extreme situations, as in the case of licensed London taxi drivers, are measurable ability-related hippocampus volume changes consistently exhibited.

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

4.7
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