The neural basis of central proprioceptive processing in older versus younger adults: An important sensory role for right putamen
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our sense of body position and movement independent of vision (i.e., proprioception) relies on muscle spindle feedback and is vital for performing motor acts. In this study, we first sought to elucidate age-related differences in the central processing of proprioceptive information by stimulating foot muscle spindles and by measuring neural activation with functional magnetic resonance imaging. We found that healthy older adults activated a similar, distributed network of primary somatosensory and secondary-associative cortical brain regions as young individuals during the vibration-induced muscle spindle stimulation. A significant decrease in neural activity was also found in a cluster of right putamen voxels for the older age group when compared with the younger age group. Given these differences, we performed two additional analyses within each group that quantified the degree to which age-dependent activity was related to (1) brain structure and (2) a behavioral measure of proprioceptive ability. Using diffusion tensor imaging, older (but not younger) adults with higher mean fractional anisotropy were found to have increased right putamen neural activity. Age-dependent right putamen activity seen during tendon vibration was also correlated with a behavioral test of proprioceptive ability measuring ankle joint position sense in both young and old age groups. Partial correlation tests determined that the relationship between elderly joint position sense and neural activity in right putamen was mediated by brain structure, but not vice versa. These results suggest that structural differences within the right putamen are related to reduced activation in the elderly and potentially serve as biomarker of proprioceptive sensibility in older adults.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".