4.7 Article

Cerebral blood flow and BOLD responses to a memory encoding task: A comparison between healthy young and elderly adults

期刊

NEUROIMAGE
卷 37, 期 2, 页码 430-439

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.05.024

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIA NIH HHS [P50 AG005131, P50 AG05131, R01 AG012674] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NINDS NIH HHS [R01 NS051661, R01 NS051661-02, R01 NS051661-01A2] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies of the medial temporal lobe have primarily made use of the blood oxygenation level dependent (BOLD) response to neural activity. The interpretation of the BOLD signal as a measure of medial temporal lobe function can be complicated, however, by changes in the cerebrovascular system that can occur with both normal aging and age-related diseases, such as Alzheimer's disease. Quantitative measures of the functional cerebral blood flow (CBF) response offer a useful complement to BOLD measures and have been shown to aid in the interpretation of fMRI studies. Despite these potential advantages, the application of ASL to fMRI studies of cognitive tasks and at-risk populations has been limited. In this study, we demonstrate the application of ASL fMRI to obtain measures of the CBF and BOLD responses to the encoding of natural scenes in healthy young (mean 25 years) and elderly (mean 74 years) adults. The percent CBF increase in the medial temporal lobe was significantly higher in the older adults, whereas the CBF levels during baseline and task conditions and during a separate resting-state scan were significantly lower in the older group. The older adults also showed slightly higher values for the BOLD response amplitude and the absolute change in CBF, but the age group differences were not significant. The percent CBF and BOLD responses are consistent with an age-related increase in the cerebral metabolic rate of oxygen metabolism (CMRO2) response to memory encoding. (c) 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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