Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28476664›Full record

ArticleNeuroImage2017

Functional modular architecture underlying attentional control in aging.

Zachary A Monge, Benjamin R Geib, Rachel E Siciliano, Lauren E Packard, Catherine W Tallman, David J Madden

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NeuroImage, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Zachary A MongeCenter for Cognitive Neuroscience, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, USA. Electronic address: zachary.monge@duke.edu.
Benjamin R GeibCenter for Cognitive Neuroscience, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, USA.
Rachel E SicilianoBrain Imaging and Analysis Center, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710, USA.
Lauren E PackardBrain Imaging and Analysis Center, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710, USA.
Catherine W TallmanBrain Imaging and Analysis Center, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710, USA.
David J MaddenBrain Imaging and Analysis Center, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710, USA; Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710, USA.

Funding

Neuroimaging of Visual Attention in AgingR01AG039684 · NIA · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI MADDEN, DAVID J. · 2011 to 2022
$5.0M
NIA NIH HHS R01 AG039684
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Previous research suggests that age-related differences in attention reflect the interaction of top-down and bottom-up processes, but the cognitive and neural mechanisms underlying this interaction remain an active area of research. Here, within a sample of community-dwelling adults 19-78 years of age, we used diffusion reaction time (RT) modeling and multivariate functional connectivity to investigate the behavioral components and whole-brain functional networks, respectively, underlying bottom-up and top-down attentional processes during conjunction visual search. During functional MRI scanning, participants completed a conjunction visual search task in which each display contained one item that was larger than the other items (i.e., a size singleton) but was not informative regarding target identity. This design allowed us to examine in the RT components and functional network measures the influence of (a) additional bottom-up guidance when the target served as the size singleton, relative to when the distractor served as the size singleton (i.e., size singleton effect) and (b) top-down processes during target detection (i.e., target detection effect; target present vs. absent trials). We found that the size singleton effect (i.e., increased bottom-up guidance) was associated with RT components related to decision and nondecision processes, but these effects did not vary with age. Also, a modularity analysis revealed that frontoparietal module connectivity was important for both the size singleton and target detection effects, but this module became central to the networks through different mechanisms for each effect. Lastly, participants 42 years of age and older, in service of the target detection effect, relied more on between-frontoparietal module connections. Our results further elucidate mechanisms through which frontoparietal regions support attentional control and how these mechanisms vary in relation to adult age.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAge FactorsAgingAttentionCerebral CortexConnectomeExecutive FunctionFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedVisual PerceptionYoung AdultAgingAttentional controlDiffusion modelingFunctional connectivityGraph theory

Identifiers

PMID28476664
PMCPMC5512538

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.