| Literature DB >> 29375352 |
Sergio M Sánchez-Moguel1,2, Graciela C Alatorre-Cruz3, Juan Silva-Pereyra3, Sofía González-Salinas1,4, Javier Sanchez-Lopez1,5, Gloria A Otero-Ojeda6, Thalía Fernández1.
Abstract
During healthy aging, inhibitory processing is affected at the sensorial, perceptual, and cognitive levels. The assessment of event-related potentials (ERPs) during the Stroop task has been used to study age-related decline in the efficiency of inhibitory processes. Studies using ERPs have found that the P300 amplitude increases and the N500 amplitude is attenuated in healthy elderly adults compared to those in young adults. On the other hand, it has been reported that theta excess in resting EEG with eyes closed is a good predictor of cognitive decline during aging 7 years later, while a normal EEG increases the probability of not developing cognitive decline. The behavioral and ERP responses during a Counting-Stroop task were compared between 22 healthy elderly subjects with normal EEG (Normal-EEG group) and 22 healthy elderly subjects with an excess of EEG theta activity (Theta-EEG group). Behaviorally, the Normal-EEG group showed a higher behavioral interference effect than the Theta-EEG group. ERP patterns were different between the groups, and two facts are highlighted: (a) the P300 amplitude was higher in the Theta-EEG group, with both groups showing a P300 effect in almost all electrodes, and (b) the Theta-EEG group did not show an N500 effect. These results suggest that the diminishment in inhibitory control observed in the Theta-EEG group may be compensated by different processes in earlier stages, which would allow them to perform the task with similar efficiency to that of participants with a normal EEG. This study is the first to show that healthy elderly subjects with an excess of theta EEG activity not only are at risk of developing cognitive decline but already have a cognitive impairment.Entities:
Keywords: EEG; ERPs; N450; N500; aging; counting-stroop task; inhibitory control; theta activity
Year: 2018 PMID: 29375352 PMCID: PMC5768990 DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2017.00658
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Hum Neurosci ISSN: 1662-5161 Impact factor: 3.169
Characteristics of the samples.
| Age (years) | Normal | 65.54 ± 5.21 | −1.22 | 0.22 |
| Theta | 67.59 ± 5.81 | |||
| IQ (WAIS) | Normal | 103.78 ± 7.95 | 0.84 | 0.40 |
| Theta | 101.74 ± 8.50 | |||
| Scholar Education (years) | Normal | 15.81 ± 5.13 | 0.36 | 0.71 |
| Theta | 15.31 ± 3.84 | |||
| Q-LES-Q score | Normal | 79.26 ± 8.04 | 0.35 | 0.72 |
| Theta | 78.21 ± 10.98 | |||
| AUDIT score | Normal | 2.00 ± 1.95 | −0.16 | 0.87 |
| Theta | 2.09 ± 1.77 |
Figure 1Grand average ERPs per experimental condition by group. Colored shadow boxes indicate significant differences between the conditions in the same group. Positive amplitude is plotted upward. Red lines represent ERPs of the Normal-EEG group, and blue lines represent the Theta-EEG group. Solid and dotted lines represent congruent and incongruent conditions, respectively.
Figure 2Difference waves (i.e., incongruent minus congruent condition) on the midline electrodes. Colored boxes indicate significant differences between the groups.
Mean and standard deviation (SD) of the reaction times and percentage of correct responses.
| Normal EEG | 22 | Incongruent | 721.80 ± 53.83 | 11462.90 ± 2410.50 | 79.05 ± 12.05 |
| Congruent | 652.88 ± 52.61 | 10569.93 ± 2853.51 | 85.94 ± 8.69 | ||
| Theta EEG | 22 | Incongruent | 702.12 ± 72.60 | 11501.90 ± 2941.84 | 77.72 ± 13.07 |
| Congruent | 649.62 ± 65.25 | 10901.97 ± 4454.62 | 86.17 ± 9.37 |
RTs: Reaction Times.
Figure 3Amplitude maps and wave difference map in both groups at the three windows analyzed. The Normal-EEG group is on the left, and the Theta-EEG group is on the right. Note in the difference maps (Incon-Con) that (A) no N200 effect was observed for any group, (B) the P300 effect was generalized for both groups, and (C) there was a generalized N500 effect in the Normal-EEG group and a lack of an N500 effect in the Theta-EEG group.
N500 (500–700 ms) post-hoc comparisons of Group × Condition × Coronal × Sagittal interaction.
| Frontal | Left | F7 | −0.48 | −0.42 |
| Left-medial | F3 | −1.26 | 0.20 | |
| Medial | Fz | −1.86 | 0.03 | |
| Right medial | F4 | −1.62 | 0.28 | |
| Right | F8 | −0.99 | 0.57 | |
| Fronto–central | Left | FT7 | −0.94 | −0.35 |
| Left-medial | FC3 | −1.85 | −0.26 | |
| Medial | FCz | −2.59 | −0.30 | |
| Right-medial | FC4 | −1.89 | −0.10 | |
| Right | FT8 | −1.03 | −0.65 | |
| Central | Left | T3 | −1.08 | −0.32 |
| Left-medial | C3 | −2.34 | −0.45 | |
| Medial | Cz | −3.03 | −0.50 | |
| Right-medial | C4 | −2.97 | −0.29 | |
| Right | T4 | −1.15 | −0.64 | |
| Centro-parietal | Left | TP7 | −1.40 | −0.09 |
| Left-medial | CP3 | −2.40 | −0.42 | |
| Medial | CPz | −2.74 | −0.54 | |
| Right-medial | CP4 | −2.35 | −0.39 | |
| Right | TP8 | −1.23 | −0.41 | |
| Parietal | Left | T5 | −1.57 | −0.25 |
| Left-medial | P3 | −2.07 | −0.21 | |
| Medial | Pz | −2.54 | −0.28 | |
| Right-medial | P4 | −2.01 | −0.21 | |
| Right | T6 | −1.43 | −0.44 |
p < 0.05,
p < 0.01,
p < 0.001.
MD, Mean difference.