↓ Skip to main content

Age differences in hippocampal activation during gist-based false recognition

Overview of attention for article published in Neurobiology of Aging, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
60 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.
Article details
Title
Age differences in hippocampal activation during gist-based false recognition
Published in
Neurobiology of Aging, June 2016
DOI 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2016.06.014
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Age-related increases in reliance on gist-based processes can cause increased false recognition. Understanding the neural basis for this increase helps to elucidate a mechanism underlying this vulnerability in memory. We assessed age differences in gist-based false memory by increasing image set size at encoding, thereby increasing the rate of false alarms. False alarms during a recognition test elicited increased hippocampal activity for older adults as compared to younger adults for the small set sizes, whereas the age groups had similar hippocampal activation for items associated with larger set sizes. Interestingly, younger adults had stronger connectivity between the hippocampus and posterior temporal regions relative to older adults during false alarms for items associated with large versus small set sizes. With increased gist, younger adults might rely more on additional processes (e.g., semantic associations) during recognition than older adults. Parametric modulation revealed that younger adults had increased anterior cingulate activity than older adults with decreasing set size, perhaps indicating difficulty in using monitoring processes in error-prone situations.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 60 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 23%
Student > Bachelor 7 12%
Student > Postgraduate 7 12%
Student > Master 6 10%
Researcher 5 8%
Other 13 22%
Unknown 8 13%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 36 60%
Neuroscience 6 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 3%
Environmental Science 1 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 13 22%
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 28 July 2016.
All research outputs
#14,600,553
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Neurobiology of Aging
#3,279
of 4,418 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#191,454
of 367,294 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neurobiology of Aging
#53
of 69 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 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 4,418 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 367,294 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 69 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.