More flexible brain activation underlies cognitive reserve in older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal of this study was to identify the brain mechanisms underlying cognitive reserve using a parametric n-back working memory (WM) task in a sample of healthy older adults. We first identified the WM-related activations associated with years of education and then tested whether these activations mitigated the detrimental impact of age on cognition. Thirty-nine older adults received a magnetic resonance imaging examination while completing an n-back task with different levels of WM load (0-, 1- vs. 2-back). Results show that more education is associated with lower activation of the left medial superior frontal gyrus (BA8) in the 1-back condition and a greater activation of the right caudate nucleus in the 2-back condition. The caudate and frontal activations are task-positive and task-negative regions, respectively. Moderation analyses indicate that the effect of age on performance is less detrimental in participants with higher caudate activation in the 2-back condition. Overall, these results suggest that cognitive reserve is explained by a superior ability to flexibly engage greater or novel activation as cognitive demand increases.
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".