↓ Skip to main content

Regional Brain Volumes Moderate, but Do Not Mediate, the Effects of Group-Based Exercise Training on Reductions in Loneliness in Older Adults

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
51 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
201 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
Regional Brain Volumes Moderate, but Do Not Mediate, the Effects of Group-Based Exercise Training on Reductions in Loneliness in Older Adults
Published in
Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, April 2017
DOI 10.3389/fnagi.2017.00110
Pubmed ID
Authors

Diane K. Ehlers, Ana M. Daugherty, Agnieszka Z. Burzynska, Jason Fanning, Elizabeth A. Awick, Laura Chaddock-Heyman, Arthur F. Kramer, Edward McAuley

Abstract

Introduction: Despite the prevalence of and negative health consequences associated with perceived loneliness in older adults, few studies have examined interactions among behavioral, psychosocial, and neural mechanisms. Research suggests that physical activity and improvements in perceived social support and stress are related to reductions in loneliness. Yet, the influence of brain structure on these changes is unknown. The present study examined whether change in regional brain volume mediated the effects of changes in social support and stress on change in perceived loneliness after an exercise intervention. We also examined the extent to which baseline brain volumes moderated the relationship between changes in social support, stress, and loneliness. Methods: Participants were 247 older adults (65.4 ± 4.6 years-old) enrolled in a 6-month randomized controlled trial comprised of four exercise conditions: Dance (n = 69), Strength/Stretching/Stability (n = 70), Walk (n = 54), and Walk Plus (n = 54). All groups met for 1 h, three times weekly. Participants completed questionnaires assessing perceived social support, stress, and loneliness at baseline and post-intervention. Regional brain volumes (amygdala, prefrontal cortex [PFC], hippocampus) before and after intervention were measured with automatic segmentation of each participant's T1-weighted structural MRI. Data were analyzed in a latent modeling framework. Results: Perceived social support increased (p = 0.003), while stress (p < 0.001), and loneliness (p = 0.001) decreased over the intervention. Increased social support directly (-0.63, p < 0.01) and indirectly, through decreased stress (-0.10, p = 0.02), predicted decreased loneliness. Changes in amygdala, PFC, and hippocampus volumes were unrelated to change in psychosocial variables (all p ≥ 0.44). However, individuals with larger baseline amygdalae experienced greater decreases in loneliness due to greater reductions in stress (0.35, p = 0.02). Further, individuals with larger baseline PFC volumes experienced greater reductions in stress due to greater increases in social support (-0.47, p = 0.02). No group differences in these pathways were observed. Conclusions: The social support environment and resulting reductions in stress, as opposed to exercise mode, may represent important features of exercise programs for improving older adults' perceived loneliness. As amygdala volume has been linked to anxiety, depression and impaired cognitive control processes in the PFC, moderation findings suggest further investigation in this area is warranted. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01472744 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01472744?term=NCT01472744&rank=1).

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 readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 201 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Denmark 1 <1%
Unknown 200 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 38 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 12%
Student > Bachelor 24 12%
Researcher 22 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 16 8%
Other 21 10%
Unknown 56 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 47 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 9%
Sports and Recreations 15 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 15 7%
Neuroscience 14 7%
Other 27 13%
Unknown 64 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 33. 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 17 July 2017.
All research outputs
#1,042,627
of 22,965,074 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
#210
of 4,833 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,758
of 309,748 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
#16
of 122 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,965,074 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,833 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
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 309,748 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 122 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.