CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 475Advanced Neuroimaging Techniques and ApplicationsCognitive Abilities and TestingDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 85 of the 85 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 59 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Aging white matter and cognition: Differential effects of regional variations in diffusion properties on memory, executive functions, and speed

Open access
Kennedy, Kristen M., Raz, Naftali·2009·Neuropsychologia
DOI 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.01.001PMC PMC2643310
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Disruption of cerebral white matter has been proposed as an explanation for age-related cognitive declines. However, the role of specific regions in specific cognitive declines remains unclear. We used diffusion tensor imaging to examine the associations between regional microstructural integrity of the white matter and performance on age-sensitive cognitive tasks in a sample of healthy adults (N=52, age 19-81 years). White matter integrity was assessed by fractional anisotropy (FA) and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) in multiple regions of interest (genu and splenium of corpus callosum, internal capsule limbs, prefrontal, temporal, superior/posterior parietal, occipital white matter) and related to processing speed, working memory, inhibition, task switching, and episodic memory. We found that age and regional white matter integrity differentially influenced cognitive performance. Age-related degradation in anterior brain areas was associated with decreased processing speed and poorer working memory, whereas reduced inhibition and greater task switching costs were linked to decline in posterior areas. Poorer episodic memory was associated with age-related differences in central white matter regions. The observed multiple dissociations among specific age-sensitive cognitive skills and their putative neuroanatomical substrates support the view that age-related cognitive declines are unlikely to stem from a single cause.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.01.001

Cites

85 of 85 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

64 tests recomputed · 0 with the reported and recomputed p on opposite sides of .05

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 59 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

Show all 75 claims

  • Probably not a substantial claim. 16
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 41
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 2
53 of 53

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Age-related differences observed in this cross-sectional sample reflect the effects of aging rather than cohort or other between-person differences.

    “Age-related degradation in anterior brain areas was associated with decreased processing speed and poorer working memory”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The 52 participants with complete cognitive data are representative of the 77 participants with complete DTI data.

    “The current study reports on a subsample of 52 participants who had complete cognitive data.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The manual ROI measurements of FA and ADC are reliable.

    “We aimed to overcome at least some of the outlined limitations by obtaining highly reliable manual measures of fractional anisotropy and apparent diffusivity in multiple specific regions of the cerebral white matter in a well-characterized healthy lifespan sample.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The temporal stem ROI is located within the uncinate fasciculus and includes fibers of the inferior fronto-occipital and inferior longitudinal fasciculi.

    “ostensibly within the uncinate fasciculus (UNC) which connects to (orbital) prefrontal cortex anteriorly and to the occipital lobes posteriorly via the inferior fronto-occipital (IFO) and inferior longitudinal (ILF) fasciculi.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The occipital ROI includes fibers from the superior longitudinal and inferior fronto-occipital fasciculi.

    “This white matter ROI ostensibly includes fibers from the superior longitudinal (SLF) and inferior fronto-occipital (IFO) fasciculi and connects occipital with frontal and parietal and with temporal regions, respectively.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Lower FA and higher ADC indicate poorer white matter microstructural integrity.

    “Aging of the regional white matter, as indicated by FA and ADC, was linked to performance on all cognitive tests except WCST.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The cognitive tasks measure the theoretically defined cognitive domains of processing speed, working memory, inhibition, task switching, and episodic memory.

    “The data for each theoretically defined cognitive domain were analyzed in a separate general linear model.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The uncinate fasciculus runs forward to frontal cortex and backward through the IFO and ILF to occipital cortex.

    “These regions represent fibers in the uncinate fasciculus, which project anteriorly to the frontal cortex and posteriorly via the IFO and ILF to the occipital cortex.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Parietal association cortex links to frontal, temporal, and occipital cortex through the SLF and SFO.

    “Parietal association cortex is connected via the SLF and SFO to frontal, temporal, and occipital cortex.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Executive functions rely on prefrontal and posterior parietal cortex together.

    “because executive functions indeed depend on both prefrontal and posterior parietal cortices”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Optimal cognitive performance in older adults requires compensatory rerouting of information flow.

    “If maintenance of optimal cognitive performance in older adults depends upon compensatory “rerouting” of the information flow”
11 of 11

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Statistics that don’t add up

Each reported p-value recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom.

  • p-value fits an unstated one-tailed test: F(1,48) = 11.74, p < .001

    Minor

    The paper reports p < .001 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .001. The reported value is what a one-tailed test gives, but the paper does not say near this result that a one-tailed test was used.

    Reported p < .001 · recomputed p = .001

  • Inconsistent p-value: F(2,96) = 5.07, p = .02

    Minor

    The paper reports p = .02 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .008. The check cannot tell whether the statistic or the p-value is the misprint.

    Reported p = .02 · recomputed p = .008

  • Inconsistent p-value: F(2, 96) = 6.41, p = .005

    Minor

    The paper reports p = .005 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .002. The check cannot tell whether the statistic or the p-value is the misprint.

    Reported p = .005 · recomputed p = .002

  • p-value fits an unstated one-tailed test: F(1,48) = 10.90, p = .001

    Minor

    The paper reports p = .001 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .002. The reported value is what a one-tailed test gives, but the paper does not say near this result that a one-tailed test was used.

    Reported p = .001 · recomputed p = .002

  • Inconsistent p-value: F(1,48) = 6.84, p < .001

    Minor

    The paper reports p < .001 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .012. The check cannot tell whether the statistic or the p-value is the misprint.

    Reported p < .001 · recomputed p = .012

  • p-value fits an unstated one-tailed test: F(1, 47) = 5.42, p < .02

    Minor

    The paper reports p < .02 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .024. The reported value is what a one-tailed test gives, but the paper does not say near this result that a one-tailed test was used.

    Reported p < .02 · recomputed p = .024

  • p-value fits an unstated one-tailed test: F(1,48) = 6.34, p = .01

    Minor

    The paper reports p = .01 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .015. The reported value is what a one-tailed test gives, but the paper does not say near this result that a one-tailed test was used.

    Reported p = .01 · recomputed p = .015

  • Inconsistent p-value: F(1, 48) = 10.50, p < .001

    Minor

    The paper reports p < .001 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .002. The check cannot tell whether the statistic or the p-value is the misprint.

    Reported p < .001 · recomputed p = .002

8 of 8

Statistics recomputed

Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.

  • Doesn’t add upF(1, 48) = 11.74reported p < .001 · recomputed p = .001

    “F(1,48) = 11.74, p < .001”

  • Doesn’t add upF(1, 47) = 5.42reported p < .02 · recomputed p = .024

    “F(1, 47) = 5.42, p < .02”

  • Doesn’t add upF(2, 96) = 6.41reported p = .005 · recomputed p = .002

    “F(2, 96) = 6.41, p = .005”

  • Doesn’t add upF(1, 48) = 10.5reported p < .001 · recomputed p = .002

    “F(1, 48) = 10.50, p < .001”

  • Doesn’t add upF(2, 96) = 5.07reported p = .02 · recomputed p = .008

    “F(2,96) = 5.07, p = .02”

  • Doesn’t add upF(1, 48) = 6.34reported p = .01 · recomputed p = .015

    “F(1,48) = 6.34, p = .01”

  • Doesn’t add upF(1, 48) = 6.84reported p < .001 · recomputed p = .012

    “F(1,48) = 6.84, p < .001”

  • Doesn’t add upF(1, 48) = 10.9reported p = .001 · recomputed p = .002

    “F(1,48) = 10.90, p = .001”

  • Consistentχ²(1) = 3.77reported p = .05 · recomputed p = .052

    “χ2 (1) = 3.77, p = .05”

  • Consistentt(50) = 2.6reported p = .01 · recomputed p = .012

    “t(50) = 2.60, p = .01”

  • Consistentt(50) = 1.05reported n.s. · recomputed p = .299

    “t(50) = 1.05, ns”

  • Consistentt(51) = 2.51reported p = .02 · recomputed p = .015

    “t(51) = 2.51, p = .02”

  • Consistentt(51) = 6.71reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(51) = 6.71, p < .001”

  • Consistentt(51) = 2.28reported p = .03 · recomputed p = .027

    “t(51) = 2.28, p = .03”

  • ConsistentF(1, 48) = 18.41reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1, 48) = 18.41, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(8, 384) = 432.3reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(8, 384) = 432.30, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(8, 384) = 4.95reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(8, 384) = 4.95, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 48) = 13.75reported p = .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1, 48) = 13.75, p = .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 48) = 4.14reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .047

    “F(1, 48) = 4.14, p < .05”

  • ConsistentF(8, 384) = 53.01reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(8, 384) = 53.01, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 47) = 4.54reported p < .04 · recomputed p = .038

    “F(1, 47) = 4.54, p < .04”

  • ConsistentF(1, 48) = 4.07reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .049

    “F(1,48) = 4.07, p < .05”

  • ConsistentF(1, 48) = 7.88reported p < .01 · recomputed p = .007

    “F(1,48) = 7.88, p < .01”

  • ConsistentF(2, 96) = 4.1reported p < .03 · recomputed p = .020

    “F(2, 96) = 4.10, p < .03”

  • ConsistentF(2, 96) = 2968reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(2, 96) = 2968, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 47) = 4.23reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .045

    “F(1,47) = 4.23, p < .05”

  • ConsistentF(1, 47) = 4.67reported p < .04 · recomputed p = .036

    “F(1,47) = 4.67, p < .04”

  • ConsistentF(1, 47) = 7.31reported p < .01 · recomputed p = .010

    “F(1, 47) = 7.31, p < .01”

  • ConsistentF(1, 49) = 5.27reported p < .03 · recomputed p = .026

    “F(1,49) = 5.27, p < .03”

  • ConsistentF(1, 49) = 862.11reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1,49) = 862.11, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 48) = 4.62reported p < .04 · recomputed p = .037

    “F(1, 48) = 4.62, p < .04”

  • ConsistentF(1, 48) = 4.17reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .047

    “F(1,48) = 4.17, p < .05”

  • ConsistentF(1, 47) = 7.77reported p < .008 · recomputed p = .008

    “F(1, 47) = 7.77, p < .008”

  • ConsistentF(1, 48) = 4.18reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .046

    “F(1,48) = 4.18, p < .05”

  • ConsistentF(1, 48) = 4.5reported p < .04 · recomputed p = .039

    “F(1,48) = 4.50, p < .04”

  • ConsistentF(1, 47) = 5.09reported p < .03 · recomputed p = .029

    “F(1,47) = 5.09, p < .03”

  • ConsistentF(1, 47) = 6.34reported p < .02 · recomputed p = .015

    “F(1,47) = 6.34, p < .02”

  • ConsistentF(1, 47) = 4reported p = .05 · recomputed p = .051

    “F(1, 47) = 4.00, p = .05”

  • ConsistentF(1, 48) = 4.64reported p < .04 · recomputed p = .036

    “F(1,48) = 4.64, p < .04”

  • ConsistentF(1, 48) = 24.91reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1,48) = 24.91, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 47) = 4.14reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .048

    “F(1, 47) = 4.14, p < .05”

  • ConsistentF(1, 47) = 4.22reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .046

    “F(1, 47) = 4.22, p < .05”

  • ConsistentF(1, 46) = 1.91reported p = .17 · recomputed p = .174

    “F(1,46) = 1.91, p = .17”

  • ConsistentF(1, 46) = 164.6reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1,46) = 164.60, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 45) = 4.89reported p < .04 · recomputed p = .032

    “F(1, 45) = 4.89, p < .04”

  • ConsistentF(1, 44) = 4.09reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .049

    “F(1, 44) = 4.09, p < .05”

  • ConsistentF(1, 45) = 4.36reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .042

    “F(1,45) = 4.36, p < .05”

  • ConsistentF(1, 45) = 5.63reported p = .02 · recomputed p = .022

    “F(1, 45) = 5.63, p = .02”

  • ConsistentF(1, 45) = 6.56reported p = .01 · recomputed p = .014

    “F(1,45) = 6.56, p = .01”

  • ConsistentF(1, 48) = 7.62reported p < .01 · recomputed p = .008

    “F(1,48) = 7.62, p < .01”

  • ConsistentF(1, 48) = 4.05reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .050

    “F(1, 48) = 4.05, p < .05”

  • ConsistentF(1, 48) = 4.39reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .041

    “F(1,48) = 4.39, p < .05”

  • ConsistentF(1, 48) = 5.03reported p < .03 · recomputed p = .030

    “F(1,48) = 5.03, p < .03”

  • ConsistentF(1, 48) = 1.38reported n.s. · recomputed p = .246

    “F(1, 48) = 1.38, ns”

  • ConsistentF(1, 48) = 5.02reported p < .03 · recomputed p = .030

    “F(1, 48) = 5.02, p < .03”

  • ConsistentF(1, 47) = 3.95reported p = .05 · recomputed p = .053

    “F(1,47) = 3.95, p = .05”

  • ConsistentF(1, 48) = 2.21reported p = .14 · recomputed p = .144

    “F(1, 48) = 2.21, p = .14”

  • ConsistentF(1, 48) = 5.42reported p < .03 · recomputed p = .024

    “F(1,48) = 5.42, p < .03”

  • ConsistentF(1, 48) = 14.62reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1,48) = 14.62, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 48) = 4.32reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .043

    “F(1,48) = 4.32, p < .05”

  • ConsistentF(1, 48) = 1.66reported n.s. · recomputed p = .204

    “F(1, 48) = 1.66, ns.”

  • ConsistentF(1, 48) = 9.07reported p < .01 · recomputed p = .004

    “F(1,48) = 9.07, p < .01”

  • ConsistentF(1, 48) = 5.56reported p < .03 · recomputed p = .022

    “F(1,48) = 5.56, p < .03”

  • ConsistentF(1, 47) = 3.82reported p = .056 · recomputed p = .057

    “F(1,47) = 3.82, p = .056”

64 of 64

Self-check

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

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Not every episodic-memory index had a significant temporal anisotropy association

    Minor

    The discussion claims a significant temporal-region anisotropy association for every episodic-memory index, whereas delayed picture-name recognition had only a nonsignificant temporal FA trend.

  • Reported slope confidence intervals overlap

    Minor

    The reported slope estimates and their ± errors imply overlapping 95% confidence intervals: approximately 0.00036-0.00204 for men and −0.00003-0.00063 for women. That contradicts the claim that the intervals do not overlap.

2 of 2

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 85 references

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Buckner, 2004, Memory and executive function in aging and AD: Multiple factors that cause decline and reserve factors that compensate, Neuron, 44, 195, 10.1016/j.neuron.2004.09.006 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Chepuri, 2002, American Journal of Neuroradiology, 23, 803
  3. Folstein, 1975, “Mini-mental state”. A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician, Journal of Psychiatric Research, 12, 189, 10.1016/0022-3956(75)90026-6 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Oldfield, 1971, The assessment and analysis of handedness, Neuropsychologia, 9, 97, 10.1016/0028-3932(71)90067-4 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 475

Metadata

Authors
Kennedy, K. M., & Raz, N.
Affiliations
Wayne State University (US)
Corresponding author
Raz, Naftali
ORCID
Venue
Neuropsychologia
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2009-02
Volume
47
Issue
3
Pages
916-927
ISSN
0028-3932 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.01.001
PMC
PMC2643310
OpenAlex
W2073850739
Cited by
475
References
85
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 38 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 32 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 27 · 2016: 35 · 2015: 32 · 2014: 26 · 2013: 39 · 2012: 32
FWCI
27.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Neuropsychologia (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • American Psychological Association
  • Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (T32HS013819)
  • National Institute on Aging (R37AG011230, R01AG011230, R03AG024630)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Keywords
white matter aging, age-related cognitive decline, fractional anisotropy, apparent diffusion coefficient, corpus callosum, internal capsule, prefrontal white matter, processing speed, working memory, inhibition, task switching, episodic memory
MeSH terms
Adult, Age Factors, Aged, Brain, Cognition, Corpus Callosum, Female, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Inhibition, Psychological, Male, Memory, Middle Aged, Neuropsychological Tests, Occipital Lobe, Parietal Lobe, Psychomotor Performance, Temporal Lobe, Prefrontal Cortex, Diffusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-05, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-05 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

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