↓ Skip to main content

A corticostriatal deficit promotes temporal distortion of automatic action in ageing

Overview of attention for article published in eLife, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A corticostriatal deficit promotes temporal distortion of automatic action in ageing
Published in
eLife, October 2017
DOI 10.7554/elife.29908
Pubmed ID
Authors

Miriam Matamales, Zala Skrbis, Matthew R Bailey, Peter D Balsam, Bernard W Balleine, Jürgen Götz, Jesus Bertran-Gonzalez

Abstract

The acquisition of motor skills involves implementing action sequences that increase task efficiency while reducing cognitive loads. This learning capacity depends on specific cortico-basal ganglia circuits that are affected by normal ageing. Here, combining a series of novel behavioural tasks with extensive neuronal mapping and targeted cell manipulations in mice, we explored how ageing of cortico-basal ganglia networks alters the microstructure of action throughout sequence learning. We found that, after extended training, aged mice produced shorter actions and displayed squeezed automatic behaviours characterised by ultrafast oligomeric action chunks that correlated with deficient reorganisation of corticostriatal activity. Chemogenetic disruption of a striatal subcircuit in young mice reproduced age-related within-sequence features, and the introduction of an action-related feedback cue temporarily restored normal sequence structure in aged mice. Our results reveal static properties of aged cortico-basal ganglia networks that introduce temporal limits to action automaticity, something that can compromise procedural learning in ageing.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 35 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 14%
Researcher 5 14%
Student > Bachelor 5 14%
Student > Master 5 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Other 8 23%
Unknown 5 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 14 40%
Psychology 6 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 11%
Sports and Recreations 2 6%
Decision Sciences 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 7 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 September 2021.
All research outputs
#13,336,880
of 23,006,268 outputs
Outputs from eLife
#11,441
of 13,940 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#160,190
of 327,882 outputs
Outputs of similar age from eLife
#309
of 393 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,006,268 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,940 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 36.9. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 327,882 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 393 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.