Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34733219›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in psychology2021

What Can Neural Activity Tell Us About Cognitive Resources in Aging?

Chiara F Tagliabue, Veronica Mazza

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in psychology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. 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

2 authors.

Chiara F TagliabueCenter for Mind/Brain Sciences (CIMeC) - University of Trento, Rovereto, Italy.
Veronica MazzaCenter for Mind/Brain Sciences (CIMeC) - University of Trento, Rovereto, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A reduction in cognitive resources has been originally proposed to account for age-related decrements in several cognitive domains. According to this view, aging limits the pool of available cognitive supplies: Compared to younger adults, elderly exhaust the resources more rapidly as task difficulty increases, hence a dramatic performance drop. Neurophysiological indexes (e.g., BOLD response and EEG activity) may be instrumental to quantify the amount of such cognitive resources in the brain and to pinpoint the stage of stimulus processing where the decrement in age-related resources is evident. However, as we discuss in this mini-review, the most recent studies on the neurophysiological markers of age-related changes lack a consistent coupling between neural and behavioral effects, which casts doubt on the advantage of measuring neural indexes to study resource deployment in aging. For instance, in the working memory (WM) domain, recent cross-sectional studies found varying patterns of concurrent age-related brain activity, ranging from equivalent to reduced and increased activations of old with respect to younger adults. In an attempt to reconcile these seemingly inconsistent findings of brain-behavior coupling, we focus on the contribution of confounding sources of variability and propose ways to control for them. Finally, we suggest an alternative perspective to explain age-related effects that implies a qualitative (instead of or along with a quantitative) difference in the deployment of cognitive resources in aging.

Indexed as

age-related brain activity changeaging trajectoriescognitive agingcognitive resourcesinterindividual variabilityneural correlatesworking memory

Identifiers

PMID34733219
PMCPMC8558238

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.