001010403 001__ 1010403
001010403 005__ 20230816204237.0
001010403 0247_ $$2datacite_doi$$a10.34734/FZJ-2023-03043
001010403 037__ $$aFZJ-2023-03043
001010403 041__ $$aEnglish
001010403 1001_ $$0P:(DE-Juel1)173770$$aHeckner, Marisa$$b0$$eCorresponding author
001010403 1112_ $$aOrganization for Human Brain Mapping (OHBM)$$cMontreal$$d2023-07-22 - 2023-07-26$$wCanada
001010403 245__ $$aPredicting Executive Functioning from Brain Networks: Modality Specificity and Age Effects
001010403 260__ $$c2023
001010403 3367_ $$033$$2EndNote$$aConference Paper
001010403 3367_ $$2BibTeX$$aINPROCEEDINGS
001010403 3367_ $$2DRIVER$$aconferenceObject
001010403 3367_ $$2ORCID$$aCONFERENCE_POSTER
001010403 3367_ $$2DataCite$$aOutput Types/Conference Poster
001010403 3367_ $$0PUB:(DE-HGF)24$$2PUB:(DE-HGF)$$aPoster$$bposter$$mposter$$s1692159433_14247$$xAfter Call
001010403 500__ $$aAcknowledgements: This study was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, EI 816/11-1, PA 3634/1-1, EI 816/21-1, SPP2041, CRC), the National Institute of Mental Health (R01-MH074457), the Helmholtz Portfolio Theme “Supercomputing and Modeling for the Human Brain”, the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme under Grant Agreement No. 720270 (HBP SGA1), 785907 (HBP SGA2), and 945539 (HBP SGA3).
001010403 520__ $$aHealthy aging is associated with structural and functional brain changes, which have beenlinked to executive functioning (EF) decline. Despite a known association between resting-statefunctional connectivity (RSFC) and EF [1], its potential for capturing individual differences inEF performance has been questioned [2]. Therefore, we examined to what degree individual EFabilities may be predicted from different brain modalities: RSFC, grey-matter volume (GMV),regional homogeneity (ReHo), and fractional amplitude of low frequency fluctuations (fALFF).This was done in an EF-associated (EFN), a perceptuomotor (PercMot) and a whole-brainnetwork in young and old adults.We meta-analytically defined an EFN [3] and a perceptuomotor (linked to visual,auditory, and motor processing) network [4] and used Power et al.’s [5] graph of putativefunctional areas as a whole-brain control. Imaging and behavioral data of 116 younger (age: 20–40 years, 64 females) and 111 older (age: 60–80 years, 72 females) healthy adults were obtainedfrom the enhanced NKI sample [6]. Targets for prediction comprised performance in highlydemanding (HD) and less demanding (LD) conditions of each of 3 classic EF tasks: Color-WordInterference, Trail Making, and N-Back. Individual z-transformed performance scores were thenpredicted from the characteristics of each network’s edges (RSFC) or nodes (GMV, ReHo,fALFF) using partial least-squares regression with 100 repetitions of a 10-fold cross-validationscheme. Prediction accuracy as indicated by the root mean square error (RMSE) for the 100repetitions was then submitted to a 2(age group) × 3(network) × 2(task demand level) ×4(modalities) mixed-measures ANOVA.Overall, prediction accuracy (i.e., RMSE) was rather low to moderate. Similar toprevious studies [2;7], prediction accuracy was better for older [M = .784] (vs. younger [M =.794]) adults, indicating that brain–behavior association strength increases with advancing age.This might be due to overall age-related neural decline such as atrophy or white-matterdegeneration, changes that have been associated with network integrity [8] and reorganization aswell as EF decline. Interestingly, prediction accuracy for younger adults was better whenpredicting HD [M = .757] (vs. LD [M = .831]) conditions, while for older adults, predictionaccuracy was better when predicting LD [M = .771] (vs. HD [M = .797]) conditions. Possibly,age-related effects on the network level might still be compensated for in LD by some form ofcompensation such as the additional recruitment of domain-general resources [9] subserved bythe networks investigated here, but not in HD conditions. Prediction accuracy for younger adultswas best with fALFF [M = .751] as compared to the other modalities [MGMV = .804, MRSFC =.802, MReHo = .818], while for older adults, the highest accuracy was achieved with GMV [M =.754] as compared to the other modalities [MfALFF = .783, MRSFC = .795, MReHo = .803]. GMV isstrongly linked to atrophy and its pattern of decline is thought to be rather consistent across olderadults [10]. Together with an age-related decrease in performance, this suggests that GMV is amore sensitive marker for individual EF abilities in older adults. For younger adults, fALFF, ameasure of functional variability, might be the more sensitive marker, possibly mediated via itslink to cognitive flexibility [11].Summing up, our results show modality- as well as demand-level specificity. However,overall low brain–behavior associations as well as the missing network specificity, question thepotential of the applied single metrics as markers for individual differences in EF performance.Rather, our findings suggest that future research may need to analyze more global properties ofthe brain, possibly combining different structural and functional metrics or task states as well asage-adapted behavioral testing to result in sensitive predictors for young and old adults,respectively.
001010403 536__ $$0G:(DE-HGF)POF4-5252$$a5252 - Brain Dysfunction and Plasticity (POF4-525)$$cPOF4-525$$fPOF IV$$x0
001010403 536__ $$0G:(DE-Juel1)JL SMHB-2021-2027$$aJL SMHB - Joint Lab Supercomputing and Modeling for the Human Brain (JL SMHB-2021-2027)$$cJL SMHB-2021-2027$$x1
001010403 7001_ $$0P:(DE-Juel1)131855$$aCieslik, Edna$$b1$$ufzj
001010403 7001_ $$0P:(DE-Juel1)177822$$aPaas Oliveros, Lya Katarina$$b2$$ufzj
001010403 7001_ $$0P:(DE-Juel1)131678$$aEickhoff, Simon$$b3$$ufzj
001010403 7001_ $$0P:(DE-Juel1)172843$$aPatil, Kaustubh$$b4$$ufzj
001010403 7001_ $$0P:(DE-Juel1)131693$$aLangner, Robert$$b5$$ufzj
001010403 8564_ $$uhttps://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/1010403/files/Heckner_Poster_OHBM23_2.pdf$$yOpenAccess
001010403 909CO $$ooai:juser.fz-juelich.de:1010403$$popenaire$$popen_access$$pVDB$$pdriver
001010403 9101_ $$0I:(DE-588b)5008462-8$$6P:(DE-Juel1)173770$$aForschungszentrum Jülich$$b0$$kFZJ
001010403 9101_ $$0I:(DE-HGF)0$$6P:(DE-Juel1)173770$$a HHU Düsseldorf$$b0
001010403 9101_ $$0I:(DE-588b)5008462-8$$6P:(DE-Juel1)131855$$aForschungszentrum Jülich$$b1$$kFZJ
001010403 9101_ $$0I:(DE-HGF)0$$6P:(DE-Juel1)131855$$a HHU Düsseldorf$$b1
001010403 9101_ $$0I:(DE-588b)5008462-8$$6P:(DE-Juel1)177822$$aForschungszentrum Jülich$$b2$$kFZJ
001010403 9101_ $$0I:(DE-HGF)0$$6P:(DE-Juel1)177822$$a HHU Düsseldorf$$b2
001010403 9101_ $$0I:(DE-588b)5008462-8$$6P:(DE-Juel1)131678$$aForschungszentrum Jülich$$b3$$kFZJ
001010403 9101_ $$0I:(DE-HGF)0$$6P:(DE-Juel1)131678$$a HHU Düsseldorf$$b3
001010403 9101_ $$0I:(DE-588b)5008462-8$$6P:(DE-Juel1)172843$$aForschungszentrum Jülich$$b4$$kFZJ
001010403 9101_ $$0I:(DE-HGF)0$$6P:(DE-Juel1)172843$$a HHU Düsseldorf$$b4
001010403 9101_ $$0I:(DE-588b)5008462-8$$6P:(DE-Juel1)131693$$aForschungszentrum Jülich$$b5$$kFZJ
001010403 9101_ $$0I:(DE-HGF)0$$6P:(DE-Juel1)131693$$a HHU Düsseldorf$$b5
001010403 9131_ $$0G:(DE-HGF)POF4-525$$1G:(DE-HGF)POF4-520$$2G:(DE-HGF)POF4-500$$3G:(DE-HGF)POF4$$4G:(DE-HGF)POF$$9G:(DE-HGF)POF4-5252$$aDE-HGF$$bKey Technologies$$lNatural, Artificial and Cognitive Information Processing$$vDecoding Brain Organization and Dysfunction$$x0
001010403 9141_ $$y2023
001010403 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0510$$2StatID$$aOpenAccess
001010403 920__ $$lyes
001010403 9201_ $$0I:(DE-Juel1)INM-7-20090406$$kINM-7$$lGehirn & Verhalten$$x0
001010403 980__ $$aposter
001010403 980__ $$aVDB
001010403 980__ $$aUNRESTRICTED
001010403 980__ $$aI:(DE-Juel1)INM-7-20090406
001010403 9801_ $$aFullTexts