Recollection and familiarity in aging individuals: Gaining insight into relationships with medial temporal lobe structural integrity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dual-process theories posit that two separate processes are involved in recognition, namely recollection and familiarity. Studies investigating the neuroanatomical substrates of these two processes have frequently revealed that, while recollection is functionally linked with the hippocampus, familiarity appears to be associated with perirhinal and/or entorhinal cortices integrity. Interestingly these regions are known to be sensitive to normal and neuropathological aging processes. The objective of this study was to examine the effects of aging on recollection and familiarity performance, as well as to investigate associations with the rate of false alarms. In older individuals, we further aimed to explore relationships between these recognition variables and structural integrity of the hippocampus and the entorhinal and perirhinal cortices. Younger (N = 56) and older (N = 59) adults were tested on a computerized recollection and familiarity task. In a separate session, older adults (N = 56) underwent a structural MRI. Hippocampal, entorhinal and perihinal cortices volumes were automatically segmented and then manually corrected to ensure validity of the volumetric assessment. Regional volumes were normalized for total intracranial volume. While the overall recognition performance did not significantly differ across groups, our results reveal a decrease in recollection, together with an increase in familiarity in older adults. The increase reliance on familiarity was significantly and positively associated with the rate of false alarms. In the older adult sample, significant positive associations were found between recollection estimates and normalized hippocampal volumes. The normalized total hippocampal volume accounted for 25% of the variance in recollection performance. No correlation was found between any recognition variables and perirhinal or entorhinal cortices volumes. Overall, our results suggest that the age-related impairment in recollection is linked with reduced hippocampal structural integrity.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".