Differential prioritization of intramaze cue and boundary information during spatial navigation across the human lifespan
Abstract Spatial learning can be based on intramaze cues and environmental boundaries. These processes are predominantly subserved by striatal- and hippocampal-dependent circuitries, respectively. Maturation and aging processes in these brain regions may affect lifespan differences in their contribu...
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | article |
| Lenguaje: | EN |
| Publicado: |
Nature Portfolio
2021
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://doaj.org/article/95c6a92937f046448da1b76b43b24d5a |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: | Abstract Spatial learning can be based on intramaze cues and environmental boundaries. These processes are predominantly subserved by striatal- and hippocampal-dependent circuitries, respectively. Maturation and aging processes in these brain regions may affect lifespan differences in their contributions to spatial learning. We independently manipulated an intramaze cue or the environment’s boundary in a navigation task in 27 younger children (6–8 years), 30 older children (10–13 years), 29 adolescents (15–17 years), 29 younger adults (20–35 years) and 26 older adults (65–80 years) to investigate lifespan age differences in the relative prioritization of either information. Whereas learning based on an intramaze cue showed earlier maturation during the progression from younger to later childhood and remained relatively stable across adulthood, maturation of boundary-based learning was more protracted towards peri-adolescence and showed strong aging-related decline. Furthermore, individual differences in prioritizing intramaze cue- over computationally more demanding boundary-based learning was positively associated with cognitive processing fluctuations and this association was partially mediated by spatial working memory capacity during adult, but not during child development. This evidence reveals different age gradients of two modes of spatial learning across the lifespan, which seem further influenced by individual differences in cognitive processing fluctuations and working memory, particularly during aging. |
|---|