3.8 Article Proceedings Paper

Recollections of one's own past: the effects of aging and gender on the neural mechanisms of episodic autobiographical memory

期刊

ANATOMY AND EMBRYOLOGY
卷 210, 期 5-6, 页码 497-512

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00429-005-0038-0

关键词

FMRI; biological aging; sex; neurodegenerative diseases; hippocampus

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Episodic autobiographical recollection is the most complex form of human memory. It relies on interactions between episodic memory, associated emotions, and a sense of self-continuity along the time axis of one's personal life history. Evidence exists that autobiographical memory performance as well as its underlying brain mechanisms are influenced by genetic, physiological, psychological, situational, and social-cultural factors. In particular, age (normal cognitive aging as well as age of memories, as defined by the time interval elapsed since information encoding) and gender affect both the performance level and the neural substrates of autobiographical recollection. In this review, studies concerned with aging and gender effects on autobiographical memory are discussed with reference to other age- and gender-related influences on human cognition, as well as clinical data on demented patients. Both age and gender act upon the functional hemispheric lateralization of autobiographical recollection and the prefrontal, hippocampal and parahippocampal engagement in information processing. On the performance level, re-collective qualities such as episodic detail and emotional intensity of autobiographical memories are modulated by both factors. Although the effects of aging and gender on human brain function are built upon different genetic and physiological mechanisms, they influence at least in part the same neurofunctional and behavioral dimensions of autobiographical recollection. Interestingly, age- and gender-related specificities in the neural mechanisms of autobiographical recollection need not be reflected on the performance level.

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

3.8
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