| Literature DB >> 30744137 |
Nounagnon Frutueux Agbangla1,2, Michel Audiffren3, Jean Pylouster4, Cédric T Albinet5.
Abstract
The present study aimed to examine the effects of chronological age and cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) on cognitive performance and prefrontal cortex activity, and to test the compensation-related utilization of neural circuits hypothesis (CRUNCH). A total of 19 young adults (18⁻22 years) and 37 older ones (60⁻77 years) with a high or low CRF level were recruited to perform a working memory updating task under three different cognitive load conditions. Prefrontal cortex hemodynamic responses were continuously recorded using functional near-infrared spectroscopy, and behavioral performances and perceived difficulty were measured. Results showed that chronological age had deleterious effects on both cognitive performance and prefrontal cortex activation under a higher cognitive load. In older adults, however, higher levels of CRF were related to increased bilateral prefrontal cortex activation patterns that allowed them to sustain better cognitive performances, especially under the highest cognitive load. These results are discussed in the light of the neurocognitive CRUNCH model.Entities:
Keywords: aging; cardiorespiratory fitness; cerebral oxygenation; cognitive load; fNIRS; updating of working memory
Year: 2019 PMID: 30744137 PMCID: PMC6406418 DOI: 10.3390/brainsci9020038
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Brain Sci ISSN: 2076-3425
Characteristics of the participants.
| Young Adults ( | Older Adults ( | Older High-Fit ( | Older Low-Fit ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 19.7 ± 1 | 68.95 ± 4.74 | 67.90 ± 4.86 | 70.31 ± 4.33 | |
| Gender (M/F) | 17/2 | 15/22 | 8/13 | 7/9 | |
| Education (years) | 14.00 ± 0.00 | 13.35 ± 3.85 | 14.52 ± 3.57 | 11.81 ± 3.75 | |
| VO2max (mL/Kg/min) | 54.83 ± 7.21 | 22.31 ± 7.88 | 26.10 ± 6.73 | 17.40 ± 6.58 | |
| MMSE | 29.24 ± 0.95 | 29.29 ± 1.01 | 29.19 ± 0.91 | ||
| GDS | 5.78 ± 4.25 | 5.95 ± 4.86 | 5.56 ± 3.42 |
* Significant difference between high-fit and low-fit older adults; MMSE = Mini Mental State Examination; GDS = Geriatric Depression Scale.
Figure 1Mean hemodynamic activity as a function of cognitive load, age and hemisphere. (A) = Young adults; (B) = High-fit older adults; (C) = Low-fit older adults. The colored frames on the curves correspond to the standard error of the mean. On the x axe, 0 corresponds to the start of the task + 10 s. and 140 correspond to the end of the task (see text).
Evolution of behavioral data as a function of cognitive load and group.
| Young Adults ( | Older Adults ( | Older High-Fit ( | Older Low-Fit ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RT (ms) | 0-back | 366.77 ± 43.46 | 509.41 ± 72.79 | 499.84 ± 67.38 | 521.00 ± 79.95 |
| 1-back | 404.39 ± 73.68 | 661.39 ± 161.77 * | 655.22 ± 172.32 | 669.50 ± 151.95 | |
| 2-back | 517.46 ± 152.98 | 970.15 ± 316.46 * | 959.12 ± 304.53 | 984.63 ± 341.04 | |
| 3-back | 592.72 ± 186.32 | 1110.80 ± 370.47 * | 1114.56 ± 412.97 | 1105.86 ± 319.30 | |
| A’ | 0-back | 0.99 ± 0.01 | 0.99 ± 0.01 | 0.99 ± 0.01 | 0.99 ± 0.01 |
| 1-back | 0.98 ± 0.02 | 0.96 ± 0.04 | 0.97 ± 0.03 | 0.95 ± 0.05 | |
| 2-back | 0.93 ± 0.06 | 0.90 ± 0.09 | 0.90 ± 0.07 | 0.89 ± 0.12 | |
| 3-back | 0.85 ± 0.06 | 0.75 ± 0.16 * | 0.79 ± 0.1 | 0.69 ± 0.20 ** | |
| Perceived difficulty | 0-back | 2.24 ± 1.17 | 2.51 ± 1.26 | 2.33 ± 1.35 | 2.75 ± 1.13 |
| 1-back | 4.42 ± 2.17 | 5.24 ± 1.94 | 5.24 ± 2.21 | 5.25 ± 1.57 | |
| 2-back | 7.74 ± 1.63 | 8.51 ± 2.27 | 8.95 ± 2.16 | 7.94 ± 2.53 | |
| 3-back | 10.74 ± 1.99 | 11.49 ± 1.79 | 11.86 ± 1.62 | 11.00 ± 1.93 | |
* Significant difference between young and older adults; ** Significant difference between high-fit and low-fit older adults.
Figure 2Hemodynamic concentration changes in prefrontal cortex (PFC) of young adults and older adults as a function of cognitive load (A = 1–0-back; B = 2–0-back; C = 3–0-back in young adults and D = 1–0-back; E = 2–0-back; F = 3–0-back in older adults) and hemisphere. Bars represent standard error.
Figure 3Hemodynamic concentration changes in prefrontal cortex (PFC) in low-fit and high-fit older adults as a function of cognitive load (A = 1–0-back; B = 2–0-back; C = 3–0-back). Bars represent standard error.
Figure 4Scatter plots of the robust regressions where {O2Hb} in the left PFC predicted behavioral performance in young adults (A) and high-fit older adults (B) during the 3-back condition. The grey frame represents the 95% confidence intervals.