| Literature DB >> 24367516 |
Pénélope Martinelli1, Marco Sperduti1, Anne-Dominique Devauchelle2, Sandrine Kalenzaga1, Thierry Gallarda3, Stéphanie Lion2, Marion Delhommeau1, Adèle Anssens1, Isabelle Amado3, Jean François Meder2, Marie-Odile Krebs3, Catherine Oppenheim2, Pascale Piolino4.
Abstract
Age-related changes in autobiographical memory (AM) recall are characterized by a decline in episodic details, while semantic aspects are spared. This deleterious effect is supposed to be mediated by an inefficient recruitment of executive processes during AM retrieval. To date, contrasting evidence has been reported on the neural underpinning of this decline, and none of the previous studies has directly compared the episodic and semantic aspects of AM in elderly. We asked 20 young and 17 older participants to recall specific and general autobiographical events (i.e., episodic and semantic AM) elicited by personalized cues while recording their brain activity by means of fMRI. At the behavioral level, we confirmed that the richness of episodic AM retrieval is specifically impoverished in aging and that this decline is related to the reduction of executive functions. At the neural level, in both age groups, we showed the recruitment of a large network during episodic AM retrieval encompassing prefrontal, cortical midline and posterior regions, and medial temporal structures, including the hippocampus. This network was very similar, but less extended, during semantic AM retrieval. Nevertheless, a greater activity was evidenced in the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (dACC) during episodic, compared to semantic AM retrieval in young participants, and a reversed pattern in the elderly. Moreover, activity in dACC during episodic AM retrieval was correlated with inhibition and richness of memories in both groups. Our findings shed light on the direct link between episodic AM retrieval, executive control, and their decline in aging, proposing a possible neuronal signature. They also suggest that increased activity in dACC during semantic AM retrieval in the elderly could be seen as a compensatory mechanism underpinning successful AM performance observed in aging. These results are discussed in the framework of recently proposed models of neural reorganization in aging.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 24367516 PMCID: PMC3867357 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0082385
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Neuropsychological and autobiographical measures according to the group.
| YA | OA | t-value (df = 35) | |
|
| |||
| INHIB | 6.57 (±0.46) | 17.79 (±0.88) | –6.36*** |
| TMTB-A | 28 (±15.39) | 58.29 (±26.96) | –4.39*** |
| R-SPAN | 14.25 (±3.12) | 11.06 (±3.61) | 2.88** |
| WM | 52.05 (±3.08) | 37.11 (±3.08) | 5.61*** |
|
| |||
| % SAM | 91.11 (±7.77) | 87.01 (±8.50) | 1.36 |
| RT-SAM | 2.24 (±1.06) | 2.96 (±1.61) | –1.63 |
| % EAM | 90.42 (±7.77) | 89.22 (±8.47) | 0.45 |
| RT-EAM | 2.28 (±0.94) | 2.80 (±1.71) | –1.15 |
| EPI score | 81.06 (±8.73) | 73.41 (±12.88) | 2.14* |
* p<.05; ** p <.01; *** p <.001 INHIB (interference score Stroop, inhibition). TMTB-A (trail making test B-A score, shifting). R-SPAN (running span, updating). WM ( digit, visuospatial and multimodal spans, working memory). EAM and SAM (percentage of correct responses); RT (response time); EPI (Episodic score of EAM).
Correlations between EPI score percentage of correct AM responses and neuropsychological scores in both groups.
| EPI | EAM | SAM | INHIB | TMT B-A | R-SPAN | WM | |
|
| - | 0.088 | 0.446 |
|
| 0.109 | 0.478 |
| p = .745 | p = .083 |
|
| p = .687 | p = .061 | ||
|
| 0.158 | - |
| –0.171 | 0.146 | –0.284 | –0.004 |
| p = .517 |
| p = .525 | p = .588 | p = .269 | p = .988 | ||
|
| 0.113 |
| - | –0.137 | 0.114 | –0.451 | 0.149 |
| p = .646 |
| p = .613 | p = .675 | p = .069 | p = .582 | ||
|
|
| –0.045 | –0.198 | - |
| 0.349 |
|
|
| p = .853 | p = .415 |
| p = .184 |
| ||
|
| 0.438 | 0.205 | 0.343 | 0.286 | - | 0.096 | 0.258 |
| p = .061 | p = .399 | p = .150 | p = .234 | p = .723 | p = .335 | ||
|
|
| 0.239 | 0.110 |
| 0.429 | - | 0.314 |
|
| p = .323 | p = .653 |
| p = .059 | p = .238 | ||
|
|
| 0.010 | 0.035 |
|
|
| - |
|
| p = .716 | p = .703 |
|
|
|
*p<0.05, **p<0.01, $p<0.06. EPI (Episodic score of EAM); EAM and SAM (percentage of correct responses); INHIB (interference score Stroop, inhibition). TMTB-A (trail making test B-A score, shifting). R-SPAN (running span, updating). WM (digit, visuospatial and multimodal spans, working memory). The correlations of the top are the ones of old group, those of the bottom are the ones of young group. Asterisks denote correlations that survived FDR correction,
Figure 1Main results for the EAM and SAM conditions in young and old groups.
Statistical maps are superimposed to an MNI T1 template. Statistical threshold was set at p<0.001 (uncorrected) with an extended threshold of k = 20.
Contrast for each group and both conditions using cluster level correction with the false discovery rate (FDR) with p<0.05.
| MNI | ||||||||
| Side | Labels | BA | k | t | x | y | z | |
| YOUNGEAM | ||||||||
| L | MCC | 23 | 10923 | 11.17 | –9 | –39 | 36 | |
| L | Pre-Cun | 23 | 10.74 | –9 | –54 | 30 | ||
| R | MPFC | 10 | 10.69 | 6 | 57 | 3 | ||
| L | Ang. Gyr. | 39 | 291 | 10.39 | –51 | –69 | 27 | |
| L | Ang. Gyr. | 19 | 6.68 | –42 | –72 | 39 | ||
| L | Mid. Temp. | 39 | 5.53 | –57 | –60 | 21 | ||
| R | Ang. Gyr. | 7 | 387 | 6.80 | 36 | –66 | 42 | |
| R | Inf. Par. | 40 | 5.90 | 42 | –51 | 39 | ||
| R | Ang. Gyr. | 39 | 5.85 | 54 | –60 | 30 | ||
| YOUNGSAM | ||||||||
| L | Pre-Cun | 23 | 2018 | 8.86 | –6 | –54 | 33 | |
| R | Cun. | 17 | 7.96 | 12 | –93 | 9 | ||
| L | MCC | 23 | 7.81 | –9 | –39 | 36 | ||
| L | Mid. Front. | 10 | 791 | 6.97 | –9 | 48 | –6 | |
| R | Mid. Front. | 10 | 6.31 | 9 | 42 | –3 | ||
| R | vMPFC | 11 | 5.91 | 18 | 48 | –9 | ||
| R | Cereb. | 30 | 208 | 6.91 | 18 | –36 | –15 | |
| L | pHipp. | 5.98 | –15 | –27 | –15 | |||
| Cereb. | 5.48 | 0 | –24 | –21 | ||||
| R | Rolandic | 48 | 44 | 6.06 | 45 | –24 | 24 | |
| R | Cereb. | 54 | 5.75 | 9 | –54 | –42 | ||
| L | Ang. Gyr. | 39 | 98 | 5.11 | –45 | –69 | 33 | |
| L | Ang. Gyr. | 39 | 3.68 | –48 | –54 | 27 | ||
| L | Mid. Temp. | 48 | 44 | 4.65 | –54 | –12 | –6 | |
| L | Mid. Temp. | 22 | 4.61 | –57 | –6 | –12 | ||
| L | Mid. Temp. | 21 | 4.29 | –54 | 0 | –21 | ||
| OLDEAM | ||||||||
| R | Lingual | 27 | 1430 | 7.38 | 9 | –45 | –3 | |
| L | Pre–Cun | 27 | 7.36 | –12 | –39 | 3 | ||
| L | Calcarine | 29 | 6.93 | –12 | –48 | 9 | ||
| L | Thalamus | 131 | 6.13 | –18 | –9 | 12 | ||
| L | Caudate | 5.19 | –18 | 3 | 30 | |||
| L | Caudate | 4.87 | –15 | 27 | 18 | |||
| R | Ang. Gyr | 39 | 54 | 6.11 | 48 | –66 | 39 | |
| R | Mid. Temp. | 39 | 5.72 | 51 | –60 | 21 | ||
| R | Ang. Gyr | 39 | 4.19 | 45 | –54 | 27 | ||
| L | Hipp. | 30 | 60 | 5.39 | –18 | –18 | –12 | |
| R | Lingual | 27 | 5.20 | 9 | –27 | –9 | ||
| L | Ang. Gyr | 39 | 86 | 4.98 | –48 | –60 | 30 | |
| L | Mid. Temp. | 39 | 4.36 | –48 | –60 | 21 | ||
| L | MPFC | 32 | 44 | 4.83 | –9 | 51 | 18 | |
| OLDSAM | ||||||||
| L | Ang. Gyr | 39 | 90 | 5.65 | –48 | –63 | 39 | |
| L | Mid. Occ. | 7 | 3.71 | –36 | –75 | 39 | ||
| L | Sup. Front. | 9 | 397 | 5.43 | –21 | 27 | 39 | |
| L | ACC | 32 | 4.83 | –9 | 51 | 12 | ||
| R | ACC | 32 | 4.67 | 9 | 36 | 12 | ||
| L | MCC | 23 | 370 | 5.27 | –12 | –36 | 30 | |
| MCC | 5.05 | 0 | –30 | 42 | ||||
| MCC | 4.99 | 0 | –36 | 36 | ||||
= Left; R = Right; BA = Brodmann Areas; ACC = anterior cingulate cortex; Pre-Cun = precuneus; sup. MPFC = superior medial prefrontal cortex; vMPFC = ventral medial prefrontal cortex; Ang. Gyr = angular gyrus; Hipp. = hippocampus; Cereb. = cerebellum; Inf. Par. = inferior parietal lobule; Mid. Temp. = middle temporal gyrus; MCC = middle cingulate cortex; Mid. Occ. = middle occipital gyrus; Mid. Front. = middle frontal gyrus; pHipp = parahippocampus; Mid. Front. = middle frontal gyrus; Sup. Front. = superior frontal gyrus; Inf. Par. = inferior parietal lobule. L
Figure 2Results of the 2×2 ANOVA with condition (EAM/SAM) and group (YA/OA) as factors.
A) Main effect of group by condition in the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (dACC); B) Plots represent percentage of signal change for each condition of interest and both groups;. C) Correlations between dACC activated in EAM condition and inhibition score in the two groups; D) Correlations between dACC activated in EAM condition and EPI score (richness of specificity) in the two groups. Statistical maps are superimposed to an MNI T1 template. Statistical threshold was set at p<0.001 (uncorrected) with an extended threshold of k = 20.
Figure 3Results of the 2×2 ANOVA with condition (EAM/SAM) and group (YA/OA) as factors in the right hippocampus using region-of-interest analyses.
A) Main effect of condition showed in the sagittal and the coronal plane on the left and the right respectively. B) Plots represent percentage of signal change in right hippocampus (36 –27 –6) for each condition of interest, red bars represent EAM, blue bars represent SAM, and both groups, young and old group on the left and right respectively. Statistical maps are superimposed to an MNI T1 template.
Correlations between the dACC activations and the EPI score percentage of correct AM responses and neuropsychological scores in both groups.
| EPI | EAM | SAM | INHIB | TMT B-A | R-SPAN | WM | |
|
|
| –0.072 p = .770 | –0.350 p = .141 |
| 0.232 p = .340 | 0.208 p = .392 | 0.210 p = .389 |
|
|
| –0.089 p = .743 | 0.190 p = .479 |
| 0.242 p = .365 | 0.009 p = .973 |
|
|
| 0.031 p = .899 | –0.205 p = .398 | –0.404 p = .086 | –0.080 p = .744 | –0.131 p = .591 | –0.124 p = .611 | –0.273 p = .258 |
|
| 0.402p = .122 | –0.098p = .716 | 0.191p = .478 | 0.308p = .244 | 0.201p = .455 | 0.081p = .765 | 0.413p = .112 |
EPI (Episodic score of EAM). EAM and SAM (percentage of correct responses); INHIB (interference score Stroop, inhibition). TMTB-A (trail making test B-A score, shifting). R-SPAN (running span, updating). WM (digit, visuospatial and multimodal spans, working memory). None of the correlations survived FDR correction.