4.6 Article

There are age-related changes in neural connectivity during the encoding of positive, but not negative, information

期刊

CORTEX
卷 46, 期 4, 页码 425-433

出版社

ELSEVIER MASSON, CORP OFF
DOI: 10.1016/j.cortex.2009.04.011

关键词

Aging; Connectivity; Emotion; fMRI; Memory; Structural equation modeling

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [MH080833]
  2. Searle Scholars program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Older adults often show sustained attention toward positive information and an improved memory for positive events. Little is known about the neural changes that may underlie these effects, although recent research has suggested that older adults may show differential recruitment of prefrontal regions during the successful encoding of emotional information. in the present study, effective connectivity analyses examined the network of regions that college-age and older adults recruited during the encoding of positive and negative images. Methods: Participants viewed positive and negative images while undergoing a functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) scan. Structural equation modeling was used to compare young and older adults' connectivity among regions of the emotional memory network while they encoded negative or positive items. Results: Aging did not impact the connectivity among regions engaged during the encoding of negative information, but age differences did arise during the encoding of positive information. Most notably, in older adults, the ventromedial prefrontal cortex and amygdala strongly influenced hippocampal activity during the encoding of positive information. By contrast, in young adults, a strong thalamic influence on hippocampal activity was evident during encoding. Conclusions: These findings suggest that older adults' positivity effect may arise from age-related changes in the interactions between affect-processing regions and the hippocampus during the encoding of positive information. (C) 2009 Elsevier Srl. 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

4.6
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