O3‐05‐05: Cognitive Reserve Modulates Encoding‐Related Neural Response after Memory Training in Individuals with Subjective Cognitive Decline
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A target population for cognitive intervention is individuals with subjective cognitive decline (SCD) as they are at risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease and are complaining about their memory. An important research question is whether the efficacy of cognitive training and underlying brain mechanisms differ from one person to the other. The concept of cognitive reserve which refers to the individuals’ own brain ability to cope against neuropathologic changes may contribute to these differences. One hypothesis is that cognitive reserve has a positive effect on cerebral plasticity that is induced by training. The purpose of the current study was to investigate whether the effect of cognitive training on the brain varies as a function of cognitive reserve in persons with SCD. Twenty-nine older adults with SCD were trained to use an imagery-based strategy, the method of loci, during six one-hour sessions. Neural activity during memory encoding was recorded using functional magnetic resonance imaging before Session 1, after Session 3 and after Session 6. The formal educational level was used to divide participants into those with higher and lower cognitive reserve. High-educated participants showed more memory improvement than those with low education. A 2 (group) by 3 (time) ANOVA also revealed distinct patterns of brain activity changes. After training, high-educated participants showed reduced encoding-related activity in the left superior temporal gyrus whereas low-educated participants showed increased activity in the right superior frontal gyrus. The activation changes in high-educated participants is consistent with a shift from a verbal-based to an image-based encoding within a network specialized for memory. In turn, the increased activation of the prefrontal regions in low-educated participants suggests that the recruitment of active controlled processes is needed to deploy the learned strategy. All together, these results suggest that cognitive reserve might potentialize the effect of cognitive intervention in individuals with SCD by maintaining the specialized network for memory more responsive to training.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".