Cited by 119Memory and Neural MechanismsMemory Processes and InfluencesCognitive Functions and Memory

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Aging alters neural activity at event boundaries in the hippocampus and Posterior Medial network

Open access
Reagh, Zachariah M., Delarazan, Angelique I., Garber, Alexander, Ranganath, Charan·2020·Nature Communications

Abstract

Recent research has highlighted a role for the hippocampus and a Posterior Medial cortical network in signaling event boundaries. However, little is known about whether or how these neural processes change over the course of healthy aging. Here, 546 cognitively normal participants 18–88 years old viewed a short movie while brain activity was measured using fMRI. The hippocampus and regions of the Posterior Medial network show increased activity at event boundaries, but these boundary-evoked responses decrease with age. Boundary-evoked activity in the posterior hippocampus predicts performance on a separate test of memory for stories, suggesting that hippocampal activity during event segmentation may be a broad indicator of individual differences in episodic memory ability. In contrast, boundary-evoked responses in the medial prefrontal cortex and middle temporal gyrus increase across the age range. These findings suggest that aging may alter neural processes for segmenting and remembering continuous real-world experiences.

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 · 10.1038/s41467-020-17713-4

Cites

9 of 9 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

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?

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 9 references

Research works printed but not linked: 47

  1. Zacks, J. M. & Swallow, K. M. Event segmentation. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci.16, 80–84 (2007). · DOI · Paper page
  2. Zacks, J. M., Speer, N. K., Swallow, K. M., Braver, T. S. & Reynolds, J. R. Event perception: a mind-brain perspective. Psychological Bull.133, 273 (2007). · DOI · Paper page
  3. Kurby, C. A. & Zacks, J. M. Segmentation in the perception and memory of events. Trends Cogn. Sci.12, 72–79 (2008). · DOI · Paper page
  4. Radvansky, G. A. Across the event horizon. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci.21, 269–272 (2012). · DOI
  5. Sargent, J. Q. et al. Event segmentation ability uniquely predicts event memory. Cognition129, 241–255 (2013). · DOI · Paper page
  6. Ben-Yakov, A. & Henson, R. N. The hippocampal film editor: sensitivity and specificity to event boundaries in continuous experience. J. Neurosci.38, 10057–10068 (2018). · DOI
  7. Ranganath, C. & Ritchey, M. Two cortical systems for memory-guided behaviour. Nat. Rev. Neurosci.13, 713 (2012). · DOI · Paper page
  8. Ritchey, M., Libby, L. A. & Ranganath, C. Cortico-hippocampal systems involved in memory and cognition: the PMAT framework. Prog. Brain Res.219, 45–64 (2015). · DOI
  9. Reagh, Z. M. & Ranganath, C. What does the functional organization of cortico-hippocampal networks tell us about the functional organization of memory? Neurosci. Lett.680, 69–76 (2018). · DOI · Paper page
  10. Radvansky, G. A. & Zacks, J. M. Event boundaries in memory and cognition. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci.17, 133–140 (2017). · DOI
  11. Zacks, J. M., Speer, N. K., Vettel, J. M. & Jacoby, L. L. Event understanding and memory in healthy aging and dementia of the Alzheimer type. Psychol. Aging21, 466 (2006). · DOI
  12. Kurby, C. A. & Zacks, J. M. Age differences in the perception of hierarchical structure in events. Mem. Cogn.39, 75–91 (2011). · DOI
  13. Bailey, H. R. et al. Medial temporal lobe volume predicts elders’ everyday memory. Psychol. Sci.24, 1113–1122 (2013). · DOI
  14. Kurby, C. A., Asiala, L. K. & Mills, S. R. Aging and the segmentation of narrative film. Aging, Neuropsychol. Cogn.21, 444–463 (2014). · DOI
  15. Radvansky, G. A. & Dijkstra, K. Aging and situation model processing. Psychon. Bull. Rev.14, 1027–1042 (2007). · DOI
  16. Kurby, C. A. & Zacks, J. M. Preserved neural event segmentation in healthy older adults. Psychol. Aging33, 232 (2018). · DOI
  17. Cabeza, R., Nyberg, L. & Park, D. C. Cognitive Neuroscience of Aging: Linking Cognitive and Cerebral Aging (Oxford University Press, UK, 2016). · DOI
  18. Yassa, M. A. et al. Pattern separation deficits associated with increased hippocampal CA3 and dentate gyrus activity in nondemented older adults. Hippocampus21, 968–979 (2011). · DOI · Paper page
  19. Reagh, Z. M. et al. Functional imbalance of anterolateral entorhinal cortex and hippocampal dentate/CA3 underlies age-related object pattern separation deficits. Neuron97, 1187–1198 (2018). · DOI
  20. Staffaroni, A. M. et al. The longitudinal trajectory of default mode network connectivity in healthy older adults varies as a function of age and is associated with changes in episodic memory and processing speed. J. Neurosci.38, 2809–2817 (2018). · DOI
  21. Bai, F. et al. Default-mode network activity distinguishes amnestic type mild cognitive impairment from healthy aging: a combined structural and resting-state functional MRI study. Neurosci. Lett.438, 111–115 (2008). · DOI
  22. Mevel, K., Chételat, G., Eustache, F. & Desgranges, B. The default mode network in healthy aging and Alzheimer’s disease. Int. J. Alzheimers Dis.2011, 535816 (2011).
  23. Shafto, M. A. et al. The Cambridge Centre for Ageing and Neuroscience (Cam-CAN) study protocol: a cross-sectional, lifespan, multidisciplinary examination of healthy cognitive ageing. BMC Neurol.14, 204 (2014). · DOI
  24. Taylor, J. R. et al. The Cambridge Centre for Ageing and Neuroscience (Cam-CAN) data repository: structural and functional MRI, MEG, and cognitive data from a cross-sectional adult lifespan sample. Neuroimage144, 262–269 (2017). · DOI
  25. Libby, L. A., Ekstrom, A. D., Ragland, J. D. & Ranganath, C. Differential connectivity of perirhinal and parahippocampal cortices within human hippocampal subregions revealed by high-resolution functional imaging. J. Neurosci.32, 6550–6560 (2012). · DOI
  26. Hasson, U., Malach, R. & Heeger, D. J. Reliability of cortical activity during natural stimulation. Trends Cogn. Sci.14, 40–48 (2010). · DOI
  27. Wittmann, B. C., Bunzeck, N., Dolan, R. J. & Düzel, E. Anticipation of novelty recruits reward system and hippocampus while promoting recollection. Neuroimage38, 194–202 (2007). · DOI
  28. Schultz, W. Predictive reward signal of dopamine neurons. J. Neurophysiol.80, 1–27 (1998). · DOI · Paper page
  29. Shohamy, D. & Adcock, R. A. Dopamine and adaptive memory. Trends Cogn. Sci.14, 464–472 (2010). · DOI
  30. Zacks, J. M. et al. Human brain activity time-locked to perceptual event boundaries. Nat. Neurosci.4, 651 (2001). · DOI · Paper page
  31. Magliano, J. P. & Zacks, J. M. The impact of continuity editing in narrative film on event segmentation. Cogn. Sci.35, 1489–1517 (2011). · DOI
  32. Zacks et al. The brain’s cutting-room floor: segmentation of narrative cinema. Front. Hum. Neurosci.4, 168 (2010). · DOI
  33. DuBrow, S. & Davachi, L. Temporal binding within and across events. Neurobiol. Learn. Mem.134, 107–114 (2016). · DOI · Paper page
  34. Clewett, D., DuBrow, S. & Davachi, L. Transcending time in the brain: how event memories are constructed from experience. Hippocampus29, 162–183 (2019). · DOI
  35. D’Esposito, M., Deouell, L. Y. & Gazzaley, A. Alterations in the BOLD fMRI signal with ageing and disease: a challenge for neuroimaging. Nat. Rev. Neurosci.4, 863 (2003). · DOI
  36. Davis, S. W., Dennis, N. A., Daselaar, S. M., Fleck, M. S. & Cabeza, R. Que PASA? The posterior–anterior shift in aging. Cereb. Cortex18, 1201–1209 (2007). · DOI
  37. Sekeres, M. J., Winocur, G. & Moscovitch, M. The hippocampus and related neocortical structures in memory transformation. Neurosci. Lett.680, 39–53 (2018). · DOI · Paper page
  38. Campbell, K. L. et al. Idiosyncratic responding during movie-watching predicted by age differences in attentional control. Neurobiol. Aging36, 3045–3055 (2015). · DOI
  39. Geerligs, L. & Campbell, K. L. Age-related differences in information processing during movie watching. Neurobiol. Aging72, 106–120 (2018). · DOI
  40. Pike, K. E. et al. β-amyloid imaging and memory in non-demented individuals: evidence for preclinical Alzheimer’s disease. Brain130, 2837–2844 (2007). · DOI · Paper page
  41. Rentz, D. M. et al. Cognition, reserve, and amyloid deposition in normal aging. Ann. Neurol.67, 353–364 (2010). · DOI
  42. Greicius, M. D., Srivastava, G., Reiss, A. L. & Menon, V. Default-mode network activity distinguishes Alzheimer’s disease from healthy aging: evidence from functional MRI. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci.101, 4637–4642 (2004). · DOI · Paper page
  43. Sorg, C. et al. Selective changes of resting-state networks in individuals at risk for Alzheimer’s disease. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci.104, 18760–18765 (2007). · DOI · Paper page
  44. Jones, D. T. et al. Cascading network failure across the Alzheimer’s disease spectrum. Brain139, 547–562 (2016). · DOI
  45. Maass, A. et al. Alzheimer’s pathology targets distinct memory networks in the ageing brain. Brain142, 2492–2509 (2019). · DOI
  46. Siciliano, M. et al. The Addenbrooke’s Cognitive Examination Revised (ACE-R) and its sub-scores: normative values in an Italian population sample. Neurol. Sci.37, 385–392 (2016). · DOI
  47. Abikoff, H. et al. Logical memory subtest of the Wechsler Memory Scale: age and education norms and alternate-form reliability of two scoring systems. J. Clin. Exp. Neuropsychol.9, 435–448 (1987). · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 119

Metadata

Authors
Reagh, Z. M., Delarazan, A. I., Garber, A., & Ranganath, C.
Affiliations
  • Washington University in St. Louis (US)
  • University of California, Davis (US)
Corresponding author
Reagh, Zachariah M.
Venue
Nature Communications
Published
2020-08-07
Volume
11
Issue
1
Pages
3980-3980
ISSN
2041-1723 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3048003836
Cited by
119
References
9
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 3
FWCI
9.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Communications (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Health & Human Services | NIH | National Institute on Aging (T32AG050061, 1R03AG063224-01)
  • UC Davis Alzheimer's Disease Center Pilot Grant
  • United States Department of Defense | United States Navy | Office of Naval Research (N00014-15-1-0033)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
Keywords
healthy aging, event boundaries, event segmentation, hippocampus, medial prefrontal cortex, middle temporal gyrus, episodic memory, story recall, individual differences in memory
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Aging, Female, Hippocampus, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Neurons, Oxygen, Time Factors, Linear Models, Ventral Thalamic Nuclei, Young Adult

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