Literature DB >> 32140094

Corrigendum: Effects of Second Language Learning on the Plastic Aging Brain: Functional Connectivity, Cognitive Decline, and Reorganization.

Giovanna Bubbico1,2, Piero Chiacchiaretta1,2, Matteo Parenti3, Marcin di Marco3, Valentina Panara1,4, Gianna Sepede1,5,6, Antonio Ferretti1,2, Mauro Gianni Perrucci1,2.   

Abstract

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2019.00423.].
Copyright © 2020 Bubbico, Chiacchiaretta, Parenti, di Marco, Panara, Sepede, Ferretti and Perrucci.

Entities:  

Keywords:  aging; brain plasticity; cognitive decline; functional connectivity; resting state; second language learning

Year:  2020        PMID: 32140094      PMCID: PMC7042661          DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2020.00108

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Front Neurosci        ISSN: 1662-453X            Impact factor:   4.677


In the original article, the statistically significant differences in the MMSE scores between the two groups were incorrect. A correction has been made to the Results, subsection Cognitive Performances, paragraph one: Control and intervention subjects were evaluated at the baseline phase (T0) and at the end of the 4 months (T1) period for their neuropsychological abilities. Four subjects were excluded, one did not observe inclusion criteria [had periventricular nodular heterotopia (PNH)], two did not accept to be retested at post-training condition, and one did not attend a sufficient percentage of lessons. We observed slight differences between group in terms of age (Control group Mean: 65.7, SD 3.7; Intervention group: Mean 69.5, SD 5.3; One-Way ANOVA F = 4.42, p = 0.046) and education (Controls: Mean 13.0, SD 3.0; Intervention group Mean 9.6 SD 2.9; One-Way ANOVA F = 8.43, p = 0.0008). A detailed description of statistical analysis results can be seen in Table 1. The normality of the distribution was controlled by Kolmogorov–Smirnov test (Ksd d = 0.11, p > 0.20). Statistically significant differences in MMSE score were found within and between the two groups at both T0 and T1 (p = 0.009). In more details, the two groups significantly differ at T0, with the control group performing better than the intervention group (29.35 versus 27.23, Duncan post hoc p = 0.001); on the contrary, the between group difference disappeared at T1 (28.28 versus 27.81, Duncan post hoc p = 0.42). In fact, only the control group significantly decreased its performances over time (29.35 versus 28.28 Duncan post hoc p = 0.017), whereas the intervention group remained stable (27.23 versus 27.81) (see Table 3 and Figure 2). The authors apologize for this error and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.
  1 in total

1.  Editorial: The Incredible Challenge of Digitizing the Human Brain.

Authors:  Luciano Di Mele; Carmen Moret-Tatay; Mike Murphy; Céline Borg; Raúl Espert-Tortajada; Camila R De Oliveira
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2022-02-21
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.