4.5 Article

An evaluation of distinct volumetric and functional MRI contributions toward understanding age and task performance: A study in the basal ganglia

期刊

BRAIN RESEARCH
卷 1135, 期 1, 页码 58-68

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.brainres.2006.11.068

关键词

aging; fMRI; imaging; executive functioning; attention; response execution; motor skill

资金

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [M01 RR000058-445129, M01 RR000058] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIA NIH HHS [R01 AG022304, R01 AG022304-04] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Prior work by our group and others has implicated the basal ganglia as important in age-related differences in tasks involving motor response control. The present study used structural and functional MRI approaches to analyze this region of interest (ROI) toward better understanding the contributions of structural and functional MRI measures to understanding age-related and task performance-related cognitive differences. Eleven healthy elders were compared with 11 healthy younger adults while they completed the go portion of a complex Go/No-go task. Separate ROI's in the bilateral caudate (C) and putamen/globus pallidus (PGp) were studied based upon previous findings of age-related functional MRI differences in basal ganglia for this portion of the task. Structural volumes and functional activation (in percent area under the curve during correct responses) were independently extracted for these ROI's. Results showed that age correlated with ROI volume in bilateral PGp and C, while multiple task performance measures correlated with functional activation in the left PGp. The Go/No-go task measures were also significantly correlated with traditional attention and executive functioning measures. Importantly, fMRI activation and volumes from each ROI were not significantly inter-correlated. These findings suggest that structural and functional MRI make unique contributions to the study of performance changes in aging. (c) 2006 Elsevier B.V. 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

4.5
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