Comparative Effects of Repetitive Odor Identification and Odor Memory Tasks on Olfactory Engagement in Older Populations - A Pilot fMRI Study.
Comparative Effects of Repetitive Odor Identification and Odor Memory Tasks on Olfactory Engagement in Older Populations - A Pilot fMRI Study.
复制标题
DOI：
10.2147/ndt.s298303
复制
发表时间：
2021
影响因子：
3.2
通讯作者：
Nwulia E
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Rai N;Hipolito MM;VanMeter JW;Seth R;Adenuga A;Shelby M;Misiak-Christian M;Nwaokobia C;Manaye KF;Obisesan TO;Nwulia E
这项研究使用气味记忆和气味识别任务，评估了老年人初级和高级嗅觉区域的血氧水平依赖(BOLD)反应。研究的目的是通过比较这两种气味训练任务，确定哪些嗅觉和记忆区域在老年人群中的参与度更高。12名55-75岁的成年人(75%为女性)没有鼻内或主要神经疾病，使用3-特斯拉磁共振扫描仪进行重复的气味记忆和识别任务。气味以10秒的间歇性爆发呈现，中间隔着20秒的无味空气。使用配对t检验来比较个体内气味识别和气味记忆任务之间激活程度的差异。P<；0.05的FDR簇级校正用于多个测试(具有被设置为p<；0.01和10个体素的簇定义阈值)。气味识别与记忆(即气味识别和气味记忆)的对比有几个显著激活的区域，包括许多经典的嗅觉大脑区域以及海马体。相反的对比(气味记忆和气味识别)包括梨状皮质，尽管这并不显著。这两个任务都同样激活了梨状皮质，因此，当两个任务相互比较时，这个激活区要么看起来不存在(OI>；OM)，要么只有微弱的观察(OM>；OI)。这些来自以非裔美国人为主的样本的发现表明，在老年人中，气味识别任务可能比记忆任务在定向嗅觉参与方面更有效。此外，与气味记忆任务相比，重复气味识别显著地调动了海马体--一个与阿尔茨海默病相关的区域--的作用。如果在更大规模的研究中得到证实，这一结果可能会对嗅觉训练范例的设计产生重要影响。
This study evaluated human Blood Oxygen Level-Dependent (BOLD) responses in primary and higher-order olfactory regions of older adults, using odor memory and odor identification tasks. The goal was to determine which olfactory and memory regions of interest are more strongly engaged in older populations comparing these two odor training tasks. Twelve adults 55–75 years old (75% females) without intranasal or major neurological disorders performed repetitive odor memory and identification tasks using a 3-tesla magnetic resonance scanner. Odors were presented intermittently at 10-second bursts separated by 20-second intervals of odorless air. Paired t-tests were used to compare differences in the degree of activation between odor identification and odor memory tasks within individuals. An FDR cluster-level correction of p<0.05 was used for multiplicity of tests (with a cluster-defining threshold set at p<0.01 and 10 voxels). Odor identification compared to memory (ie, odor identification > odor memory) contrasts had several areas of significant activation, including many of the classical olfactory brain regions as well as the hippocampus. The opposite contrast (odor memory > odor identification) included the piriform cortex, though this was not significant. Both tasks equally activated the piriform cortex, and thus when the two tasks are compared to each other this area of activation appears to be either absent (OI > OM) or only weakly observed (OM > OI). These findings from a predominantly African American sample suggest that odor identification tasks may be more potent than memory tasks in targeted olfactory engagement in older populations. Furthermore, repetitive odor identification significantly engaged the hippocampus – a region relevant to Alzheimer’s disease – more significantly than did the odor memory task. If validated in larger studies, this result could have important implications in the design of olfactory training paradigms.