Age-related changes to oscillatory dynamics during maintenance and retrieval in a relational memory task
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In aging, structural and/or functional brain changes may precede changes in cognitive performance. We previously showed that despite having hippocampal volumes similar to those of younger adults, older adults showed oscillatory changes during the encoding phase of a short-delay visuospatial memory task that required spatial relations among objects to be bound across time (Rondina et al., 2016). The present work provides a complementary set of analyses to examine age-related changes in oscillatory activity during maintenance and retrieval of those spatial relations in order to provide a comprehensive examination of the neural dynamics that support memory function in aging. Participants were presented with three study objects sequentially. Following a delay (maintenance phase), the objects were re-presented simultaneously and participants had to determine whether the relative spatial relations among the objects had been maintained (retrieval phase). Older adults had similar task accuracy, but slower response times, compared to younger adults. Both groups showed a decrease in theta (2-7Hz), alpha (9-14Hz), and beta (15-30Hz) power during the maintenance phase. During the retrieval phase, younger adults showed theta and beta power increases that predicted greater task accuracy, whereas older adults showed a widespread decrease in each of the three frequency ranges that predicted longer response latencies. Older adults also showed distinct patterns of behaviour-related activity depending on whether the analysis was time-locked to the onset of the stimulus or to the onset of the response during the test phase. These findings suggest that older adults may experience declines in relational binding and/or comparison processes that are reflected in oscillatory changes prior to structural decline.
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) | 0.001 | 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".