Neurocognitive aging
Does the aging brain lose its specialisation for scenes and faces?
Open access · cc by · source: Europe PMC
Older adults' scene-processing regions responded less selectively than younger adults', but their face-processing regions did not, and scene selectivity predicted memory equally at any age.
Study at a glance
- Design
- Cross-sectional — Younger vs older adults compared during fMRI while encoding word-face and word-scene pairs for a later source memory test; neural selectivity in two scene-selective and two face-selective regions measured by a univariate differentiation index and multivoxel pattern similarity.
- N
- The provided text omits the Participants and study-phase sections, so the number of younger and older adults is not stated; analyses compare two age groups.
- Population
- Healthy younger and older adults (men and women) matched on education and MMSE
- Outcome
- Category selectivity (differentiation index and within-minus-between pattern similarity) in PPA, RSC, FFA and OFA; item and source memory
Structured fields used in claim comparison tables when every cited study has a complete layer.
Key findings
Both selectivity measures agreed: older adults showed reduced differentiation in both scene regions, with large effects in the parahippocampal place area (d = 1.355) and retrosplenial cortex (d = 1.086), but no age difference in either face region. The age effect in scene regions came from weaker responses to scenes plus stronger responses to faces. Across both age groups, greater selectivity in the parahippocampal place area went with better source memory (partial r = 0.334 after controlling for age), and this relation did not differ by age. A previously reported link between scene selectivity and a verbal fluency factor did not replicate.
Methodology
Younger and older adults were scanned while they studied words each paired with a picture of a face or a scene, then later judged whether words were old and, if so, which kind of picture had accompanied them. The researchers measured how selectively two scene regions (parahippocampal place area and retrosplenial cortex) and two face regions (fusiform and occipital face areas) responded to their preferred category, using both an average-signal index and a multivoxel pattern-similarity index. They repeated the analyses using only trials later remembered correctly, to rule out differences caused by older adults remembering less.
Limitations
The design is cross-sectional, so the age differences could reflect cohort or other confounds rather than aging itself, as the authors note. The extracted text omits the participant section, so group sizes and recruitment details cannot be checked here. Category-level selectivity may be too coarse to detect age differences in how precisely individual faces are represented, and the authors cannot tell why faces were spared (colour images, active task, event-related design and different encoding strategies are all candidate explanations). The memory link is correlational and appeared only for the univariate measure, not the pattern-similarity measure.
How this study connects
Role on claims
Each row is a claim on a concept or method page where this paper supports, challenges, or qualifies the statement. Roles are hand-checked — not a model guess.
Not yet placed on a claim. This paper has study layers, but no concept page yet cites it as support, challenge, or qualifier.
Related papers in this topic
Same topic cluster — not a recommendation engine.
- How does brain wiring help preserve our thinking skills as we age?
- Does brain tau protein affect object memory in older adults?
- Does cognitive frailty in old age signal early Alzheimer's?
- Does crossing the digital divide protect late-life cognition?
- Can brief brain or body training strengthen older adults' white matter?