IC‐P‐090: Altered Inhibition in Alzheimer's Disease: An FMRI Study of Stroop Interference
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is associated with changes in selective attention and response inhibition, commonly measured using the Stroop task (Spieler et al, 1996; Stroop, 1935). While increases in neural activity have been reported in healthy adults compared to young adults as a means of compensation during the Stroop task (Langenecker, Nielson, & Rao, 2004; Milham et al., 2002), whether AD leads to a further increase in activity during a task of inhibition remains unclear. The goal of this work is to elucidate the relationship between inhibitory control in AD using fMRI and Stroop interference (conflict between stimulus word and colour e.g. green written in yellow). 34 controls (mean age 67.1 ± 9) and 16 mild AD participants (mean age 74.6 ± 7.6) completed a rapid event-related version of the Stroop task. We contrasted incongruent minus congruent conditions at stimulus onset to investigate neural activity related to Stroop interference within each group. Verbal responses were recorded, and Stroop interference (incongruent reaction time - congruent reaction time), and number of errors were calculated. Behavioural: The AD group had significantly greater Stroop interference t(-5.52) p < 0.05, with an average of 297±102.3 ms compared to 139±73.5 ms in the controls. Compared to controls, the AD group also made significantly more incongruent errors t(-4.38) p < 0.05. fMRI: Controls had increased activity relating to the incongruent condition (during inhibition) compared to AD in areas including the anterior cingulate cortex, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, orbitofrontal cortex, precuneus, and inferior frontal gyrus. The controls exhibited enhanced activity in brain areas involved in inhibitory control, while the AD group had hypoactivation. This is in line with the behavioural data (greater Stroop interference and more errors), suggesting altered inhibitory control in AD.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".