4.6 Article

Anatomy of Subcortical Structures Predicts Age-Related Differences in Skill Acquisition

期刊

CEREBRAL CORTEX
卷 28, 期 2, 页码 459-473

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/cercor/bhw382

关键词

bimanual skill acquisition; global volume; motor learning; subcortical structures; subregional shape

资金

  1. Research Foundation-Flanders (Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (FWO) Vlaanderen) [G0708.14]
  2. Interuniversity Attraction Poles Programme
  3. Belgian Science Policy Office [P7/11]
  4. KU Leuven Research Fund [C16/15/070]
  5. FWO [1504015 N]
  6. KU Leuven [PDM/16/168]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Skill acquisition capabilities vary substantially from one individual to another. Volumetric brain studies have demonstrated that global volume of several subcortical structures predicts variations in learning outcome in young adults (YA) and older adults (OA). In this study, for the first time, we utilized shape analysis, which offers a more sensitive detection of subregional brain anatomical deformations, to investigate whether subregional anatomy of subcortical structures is associated with training-induced performance improvement on a bimanual task in YA and OA, and whether this association is age-dependent. Compared with YA, OA showed poorer performance, greater performance improvement, and smaller global volume and compressed subregional shape in subcortical structures. In OA, global volume of the right nucleus accumbens and subregional shape of the right thalamus, caudate, putamen and nucleus accumbens were positively correlated with acquisition of difficult (non-preferred) but not easy (preferred) task conditions. In YA, global volume and subregional shape of the right hippocampus were negatively correlated with performance improvement in both the easy and difficult conditions. We argue that pre-existing neuroanatomical measures of subcortical structures involved in motor learning differentially predict skill acquisition potential in YA and OA.

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