4.6 Article

Cognitive Aging and the Hippocampus in Older Adults

期刊

Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
卷 8, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fnagi.2016.00298

关键词

cognitive aging; hippocampus; MoCA; NIH toolbox; structural magnetic resonance imaging

资金

  1. McKnight Brain Research Foundation
  2. University of Florida Cognitive Aging and Memory Clinical Translational Research Program
  3. NIH/NCATS CTSA [UL1 TR000064, KL2 TR000065, NIA K01AG050707-A1, R01AG054077]
  4. National Science Foundation [DMR-1157490]
  5. State of Florida

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The hippocampus is one of the most well studied structures in the human brain. While age-related decline in hippocampal volume is well documented, most of our knowledge about hippocampal structure-function relationships was discovered in the context of neurological and neurodegenerative diseases. The relationship between cognitive aging and hippocampal structure in the absence of disease remains relatively understudied. Furthermore, the few studies that have investigated the role of the hippocampus in cognitive aging have produced contradictory results. To address these issues, we assessed 93 older adults from the general community (mean age = 71.9 +/- 9.3 years) on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), a brief cognitive screening measure for dementia, and the NIH Toolbox-Cognitive Battery (NIHTB-CB), a computerized neurocognitive battery. High-resolution structural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was used to estimate hippocampal volume. Lower MoCA Total (p = 0.01) and NIHTB-CB Fluid Cognition (p<0.001) scores were associated with decreased hippocampal volume, even while controlling for sex and years of education. Decreased hippocampal volume was significantly associated with decline in multiple NIHTB-CB subdomains, including episodic memory, working memory, processing speed and executive function. This study provides important insight into the multifaceted role of the hippocampus in cognitive aging.

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