4.6 Article

Functional neuroanatomy of the encoding and retrieval processes of verbal episodic memory in MCI

期刊

CORTEX
卷 46, 期 8, 页码 1005-1015

出版社

ELSEVIER MASSON, CORP OFF
DOI: 10.1016/j.cortex.2009.07.003

关键词

Neuroimaging; Dementia; Ageing; Memory; Cognition

资金

  1. FRSQ Repar and Repric
  2. CIHR

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: The goal of this study was to explore the association between disease severity and performance on brain activation associated with episodic memory encoding and retrieval in persons with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Method: This was achieved by scanning 12 MCI persons and 10 age- and education-matched healthy controls while encoding words and while retrieving them in a recognition test. Results: Behaviorally, there was no significant group difference on recognition performance. However, MCI and healthy controls showed different patterns of cerebral activation during encoding. While most of these differences demonstrated reduced activation in the MCI group, there were areas of increased activation in the left ventrolateral prefrontal cortex. Reduced activation was found in brain areas known to be either structurally compromised or hypometabolic in Alzheimer's disease (AD). In contrast, very few group differences were associated with retrieval. Correlation analyses indicated that increased disease severity, as measured with the Mattis Dementia Rating Scale, was associated with smaller activation of the right middle and superior temporal gyri. In contrast, recognition success in MCI persons was associated with larger activation of the left ventrolateral prefrontal cortex during the encoding phase. Conclusion: Overall, our results indicate that most of the memory-related cerebral network changes in MCI persons occur during the encoding phase. They also suggest that a prefrontal compensatory mechanism could occur in parallel with the disease-associated reduction of cerebral activation in temporal areas. (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