The association between cognitive reserve and performance-related brain activity during episodic encoding and retrieval across the adult lifespan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>Remembering associations between encoded items and their contextual setting is a feature of episodic memory. Although this ability generally deteriorates with age, there is substantial variability in how older individuals perform on episodic memory tasks. A current topic of debate in the cognitive neuroscience of aging literature revolves around whether this variability may stem from genetic and/or environmental factors related to reserve, allowing some individuals to compensate for age-related decline through differential recruitment of brain regions. In this fMRI study spanning a large adult lifespan sample (N = 154), we tested whether higher cognitive reserve was associated with better task-fMRI context memory performance, and functional compensatory activity patterns in the aging brain. We used multivariate Behaviour Partial Least Squares (B-PLS) analysis to examine how age, retrieval accuracy, and a proxy measure of cognitive reserve [i.e., a composite score consisting of years of education (EDU) and crystallized IQ], impacted brain activity during the encoding and retrieval of spatial and temporal contextual details. The results indicated that age-related increases in encoding activity within anterior and lateral frontal, inferior parietal, occipito-temporal and medial temporal cortices, was correlated with better subsequent memory performance; and may be indicative of age-related functional compensation at encoding. Interestingly this compensatory pattern was not correlated with our proxy measure of cognitive reserve but was associated with total brain volume (a measure of brain reserve). However, cognitive reserve was associated with age-invariant and task-general activity in superior temporal, occipital, and left inferior frontal regions. We conclude that the relationship between cognitive reserve, brain reserve and age-related functional compensation is complex, and that EDU and IQ may not fully account for individual differences in cognitive reserve when studying well educated, healthy aging cohorts.</p>
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".