Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 373

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Age differences in prefontal recruitment during verbal working memory maintenance depend on memory load

Open access
Cappell, Katherine A., Gmeindl, Leon, Reuter-Lorenz, Patricia A.·2010·Cortex
DOI 10.1016/j.cortex.2009.11.009
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Positron emission tomography (PET) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies have revealed age-related under-activation, where older adults show less regional brain activation compared to younger adults, as well as age-related over-activation, where older adults show greater activation compared to younger adults. These differences have been found across multiple task domains, including verbal working memory (WM). Curiously, both under-activation and over-activation of dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) have been found for older adults in verbal WM tasks. Here, we use event-related fMRI to test the hypothesis that age-related differences in activation depend on memory load (the number of items that must be maintained). Our predictions about the recruitment of prefrontal executive processes are based on the Compensation Related Utilization of Neural Circuits Hypothesis (CRUNCH; Reuter-Lorenz and Cappell, 2008). According to this hypothesis, more neural resources are engaged by older brains to accomplish computational goals completed with fewer resources by younger brains. Therefore, seniors are more likely than young adults to show over-activations at lower memory loads, and under-activations at higher memory loads. Consistent with these predictions, in right DLPFC, we observed age-related over-activation with lower memory loads despite equivalent performance accuracy across age groups. In contrast, with the highest memory load, older adults were significantly less accurate and showed less DLPFC activation compared to their younger counterparts. These results are considered in relation to previous reports of activation-performance relations using similar tasks, and are found to support the viability of CRUNCH as an account of age-related compensation and its potential costs.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cortex.2009.11.009

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 10 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Cappell, K. A., Gmeindl, L., & Reuter-Lorenz, P. A.
Venue
Cortex
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-04
Volume
46
Issue
4
Pages
462-473
ISSN
0010-9452 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.cortex.2009.11.009
OpenAlex
W2149621887
Cited by
373
References
10
FWCI
7.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.