↓ Skip to main content

Consolidation in older adults depends upon competition between resting-state networks

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
69 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
Consolidation in older adults depends upon competition between resting-state networks
Published in
Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, January 2015
DOI 10.3389/fnagi.2014.00344
Pubmed ID
Authors

Heidi I. L. Jacobs, Kim N. H. Dillen, Okka Risius, Yasemin Göreci, Oezguer A. Onur, Gereon R. Fink, Juraj Kukolja

Abstract

Memory encoding and retrieval problems are inherent to aging. To date, however, the effect of aging upon the neural correlates of forming memory traces remains poorly understood. Resting-state fMRI connectivity can be used to investigate initial consolidation. We compared within and between network connectivity differences between healthy young and older participants before encoding, after encoding and before retrieval by means of resting-state fMRI. Alterations over time in the between-network connectivity analyses correlated with retrieval performance, whereas within-network connectivity did not: a higher level of negative coupling or competition between the default mode and the executive networks during the after encoding condition was associated with increased retrieval performance in the older adults, but not in the young group. Data suggest that the effective formation of memory traces depends on an age-dependent, dynamic reorganization of the interaction between multiple, large-scale functional networks. Our findings demonstrate that a cross-network based approach can further the understanding of the neural underpinnings of aging-associated memory decline.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 3%
Germany 2 3%
Unknown 65 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 36%
Researcher 16 23%
Student > Master 7 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 4%
Other 3 4%
Other 7 10%
Unknown 8 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 27 39%
Neuroscience 16 23%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 4%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 12 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 24 February 2015.
All research outputs
#18,401,176
of 22,792,160 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
#4,038
of 4,765 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#255,443
of 352,112 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
#33
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,792,160 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,765 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 352,112 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.