001     1010403
005     20230816204237.0
024 7 _ |a 10.34734/FZJ-2023-03043
|2 datacite_doi
037 _ _ |a FZJ-2023-03043
041 _ _ |a English
100 1 _ |a Heckner, Marisa
|0 P:(DE-Juel1)173770
|b 0
|e Corresponding author
111 2 _ |a Organization for Human Brain Mapping (OHBM)
|c Montreal
|d 2023-07-22 - 2023-07-26
|w Canada
245 _ _ |a Predicting Executive Functioning from Brain Networks: Modality Specificity and Age Effects
260 _ _ |c 2023
336 7 _ |a Conference Paper
|0 33
|2 EndNote
336 7 _ |a INPROCEEDINGS
|2 BibTeX
336 7 _ |a conferenceObject
|2 DRIVER
336 7 _ |a CONFERENCE_POSTER
|2 ORCID
336 7 _ |a Output Types/Conference Poster
|2 DataCite
336 7 _ |a Poster
|b poster
|m poster
|0 PUB:(DE-HGF)24
|s 1692159433_14247
|2 PUB:(DE-HGF)
|x After Call
500 _ _ |a Acknowledgements: 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).
520 _ _ |a Healthy 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.
536 _ _ |a 5252 - Brain Dysfunction and Plasticity (POF4-525)
|0 G:(DE-HGF)POF4-5252
|c POF4-525
|f POF IV
|x 0
536 _ _ |a JL SMHB - Joint Lab Supercomputing and Modeling for the Human Brain (JL SMHB-2021-2027)
|0 G:(DE-Juel1)JL SMHB-2021-2027
|c JL SMHB-2021-2027
|x 1
700 1 _ |a Cieslik, Edna
|0 P:(DE-Juel1)131855
|b 1
|u fzj
700 1 _ |a Paas Oliveros, Lya Katarina
|0 P:(DE-Juel1)177822
|b 2
|u fzj
700 1 _ |a Eickhoff, Simon
|0 P:(DE-Juel1)131678
|b 3
|u fzj
700 1 _ |a Patil, Kaustubh
|0 P:(DE-Juel1)172843
|b 4
|u fzj
700 1 _ |a Langner, Robert
|0 P:(DE-Juel1)131693
|b 5
|u fzj
856 4 _ |u https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/1010403/files/Heckner_Poster_OHBM23_2.pdf
|y OpenAccess
909 C O |o oai:juser.fz-juelich.de:1010403
|p openaire
|p open_access
|p VDB
|p driver
910 1 _ |a Forschungszentrum Jülich
|0 I:(DE-588b)5008462-8
|k FZJ
|b 0
|6 P:(DE-Juel1)173770
910 1 _ |a HHU Düsseldorf
|0 I:(DE-HGF)0
|b 0
|6 P:(DE-Juel1)173770
910 1 _ |a Forschungszentrum Jülich
|0 I:(DE-588b)5008462-8
|k FZJ
|b 1
|6 P:(DE-Juel1)131855
910 1 _ |a HHU Düsseldorf
|0 I:(DE-HGF)0
|b 1
|6 P:(DE-Juel1)131855
910 1 _ |a Forschungszentrum Jülich
|0 I:(DE-588b)5008462-8
|k FZJ
|b 2
|6 P:(DE-Juel1)177822
910 1 _ |a HHU Düsseldorf
|0 I:(DE-HGF)0
|b 2
|6 P:(DE-Juel1)177822
910 1 _ |a Forschungszentrum Jülich
|0 I:(DE-588b)5008462-8
|k FZJ
|b 3
|6 P:(DE-Juel1)131678
910 1 _ |a HHU Düsseldorf
|0 I:(DE-HGF)0
|b 3
|6 P:(DE-Juel1)131678
910 1 _ |a Forschungszentrum Jülich
|0 I:(DE-588b)5008462-8
|k FZJ
|b 4
|6 P:(DE-Juel1)172843
910 1 _ |a HHU Düsseldorf
|0 I:(DE-HGF)0
|b 4
|6 P:(DE-Juel1)172843
910 1 _ |a Forschungszentrum Jülich
|0 I:(DE-588b)5008462-8
|k FZJ
|b 5
|6 P:(DE-Juel1)131693
910 1 _ |a HHU Düsseldorf
|0 I:(DE-HGF)0
|b 5
|6 P:(DE-Juel1)131693
913 1 _ |a DE-HGF
|b Key Technologies
|l Natural, Artificial and Cognitive Information Processing
|1 G:(DE-HGF)POF4-520
|0 G:(DE-HGF)POF4-525
|3 G:(DE-HGF)POF4
|2 G:(DE-HGF)POF4-500
|4 G:(DE-HGF)POF
|v Decoding Brain Organization and Dysfunction
|9 G:(DE-HGF)POF4-5252
|x 0
914 1 _ |y 2023
915 _ _ |a OpenAccess
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0510
|2 StatID
920 _ _ |l yes
920 1 _ |0 I:(DE-Juel1)INM-7-20090406
|k INM-7
|l Gehirn & Verhalten
|x 0
980 _ _ |a poster
980 _ _ |a VDB
980 _ _ |a UNRESTRICTED
980 _ _ |a I:(DE-Juel1)INM-7-20090406
980 1 _ |a FullTexts


LibraryCollectionCLSMajorCLSMinorLanguageAuthor
Marc 21