Skip to main content
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2018 Jan 1.
Published in final edited form as: Lang Cogn Neurosci. 2016 Sep 3;32(6):661–668. doi: 10.1080/23273798.2016.1227858

Aging and the Resting State: Is Cognition Obsolete?

Karen L Campbell 1, Daniel L Schacter 1
PMCID: PMC5469409  NIHMSID: NIHMS819199  PMID: 28626776

Abstract

Recent years have seen the rise in popularity of the resting state approach to neurocognitive aging, with many studies examining age differences in functional connectivity at rest and relating these differences to cognitive performance outside the scanner. There are many advantages to the resting state that likely contribute to its popularity and indeed, many insights have been gained from this work. However, there are also several limitations of the resting state approach that restrict its ability to contribute to the study of neurocognitive aging. In this opinion piece, we consider some of those limitations and argue that task-based studies are still essential to developing a mechanistic understanding of how age affects the brain in a cognitively relevant manner – a fundamental goal of neuroscientific research into aging.

Keywords: aging, resting state, fMRI, cognition, functional connectivity


During the course of normal human aging, several cognitive functions are known to decline, while others are preserved. These cognitive changes have been well documented (Burke & Shafto, 2008; Fergus I M Craik & Byrd, 1982; Horn & Cattell, 1967; Kausler, 1982). While several theories exist to explain this pattern of preserved and declining functions (e.g., Craik, 1983; Hasher & Zacks, 1988; Lindenberger & Mayr, 2014; Salthouse, 1996), with the advent of modern neuroimaging techniques, the question of how age affects cognition can now be addressed at a more mechanistic level by exploring how changes in brain structure and function are associated with changes in mental outputs. Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) has revolutionized the field and become the most popular technique for imaging the aging brain in vivo. This method has yielded several significant advances in our understanding of neurocognitive aging, showing that age is often accompanied by underactivation of task-relevant regions (e.g., Davis, Dennis, Daselaar, Fleck, & Cabeza, 2008; Spreng, Wojtowicz, & Grady, 2010), overactivation of primarily frontal regions (for reviews, see Cabeza, 2002; Grady, 2008), and reduced deactivation of the default mode network (DMN) during tasks that require externally directed attention (e.g., Grady, Springer, Hongwanishkul, McIntosh, & Winocur, 2006; Lustig et al., 2003; Persson, Lustig, Nelson, & Reuter-Lorenz, 2007). More recently, there has been growing interest in the effect of age on functional connectivity, or the correspondence of low-frequency fluctuations between different brain regions, with much of this work focusing on ‘intrinsic’ connectivity observed at rest (Ferreira & Busatto, 2013).

There are several advantages to the resting state approach that likely contribute to its popularity. First, resting state scans are relatively easy to obtain and particularly well suited to special populations, such as children and others who may have difficulty performing experimental tasks in the scanner. While it is debatable whether older individuals fall into this category, and recent work has shown that naturalistic viewing paradigms (such as movie-watching) may be better suited to special populations as they increase compliance and minimize head motion in the scanner (Vanderwal, Kelly, Eilbott, Mayes, & Castellanos, 2015; Campbell et al., 2015), resting state runs certainly minimize the demands placed on elderly participants. Further, because there is no specific task to perform at rest, group differences in functional connectivity are thought to reflect intrinsic or unbiased differences in underlying network organization, rather than group differences in response to the task itself (although this assumption will be called into question below). Another advantage of the resting state comes from the popularity of the method itself. Resting state scans are now common to most individual experiments and large-scale cohort studies and thus provide an important means for comparison across experiments and institutions, serving as a sort of baseline measure of functional brain organization.

Despite these advantages, there are also several aspects of the resting state approach that limit its usefulness to the study of neurocognitive aging. This article will consider some of those limitations and argue that task-based studies are still essential to developing a mechanistic understanding of how age affects the brain in a cognitively relevant manner. We start by considering the objectives of neuroscientific research into aging, followed by a discussion of how resting state data are limited in their ability to address these goals, and finally, argue for the continued value of a task-based, cognitive neuroscience approach.

What is the goal of neuroscientific research into aging?

Before delving into approach, we first consider a key question: What are the goals of neuroscientific research into aging, at least at the level of analysis afforded by current neuroimaging techniques? In our view, a critical goal of this research is to determine how age-related brain changes impact cognitive function. While understanding how age affects brain structure and function in its own right can be informative, knowing the cognitive or behavioral significance of said changes is almost always desirable.

In fact, making sense of observed age-related differences in brain function can often be difficult without concurrent measures of cognition to relate those differences to. A general assumption throughout much of the literature is that neural changes that accompany aging are in some way ‘bad’. For instance, aging is associated with decreased grey matter volume (Raz & Rodrigue, 2006) and loss of white matter structure (Madden et al., 2012) and, probably rightly, these changes are thought to be undesirable. However, this assumption does not always hold. For instance, the observation of increased frontal activation with age during memory retrieval or working memory tasks has, in some cases, been deemed “compensatory”, in that older adults who show these overactivations tend to perform at a higher level on the task in question than those who do not (e.g., Cabeza, Anderson, Locantore, & McIntosh, 2002; Grady, McIntosh, & Craik, 2005; Reuter-Lorenz et al., 2000). This age-related increase in activation likely would have been seen as indicative of neural decline without the anchor point of cognitive performance collected at the time of scanning. Even better are paradigms that relate activation to performance on a trial-wise basis, as in subsequent memory paradigms (usually contrasting hits vs. misses; Morcom, Good, Frackowiak, & Rugg, 2003; Gutchess et al., 2005; for a recent meta-analysis, see Maillet & Rajah, 2014), response inhibition tasks (contrasting successful stop trials with go trials; e.g., Coxon et al., 2016; Sebastian et al., 2013), and verbal production tasks (e.g., contrasting successfully named famous faces with those inducing tip-of-the tongue states; Shafto, Stamatakis, Tam, & Tyler, 2010). In all of these cases, experimental designs and accompanying tasks allowed for a greater understanding of the cognitive implications of activation differences, although some have argued that we are still a long way from understanding what age-related increases in activation actually reflect (Morcom & Johnson, 2015; Shafto & Tyler, 2014).

Studies focusing exclusively on the resting state have certainly contributed to our understanding of the brain’s functional network architecture and suggested a number of ways in which this architecture may change with age. However, resting state data alone cannot explain how these changes in network architecture affect cognition. There are several reasons for this limitation, which we turn to next.

What are some of the limitations of the resting state approach?

We know that the brain is never truly at rest and yet, there seems to be an implicit (or sometimes explicit) sentiment in the literature that resting state data provide a privileged view of the brain’s underlying organization. Even the term, “intrinsic connectivity”, implies a sort of unbiased or pure measure, unaffected by the execution of specific cognitive operations. This view has led some to suggest that the resting state is “particularly well suited toward characterizing and understanding the complex organization of brain networks across various cohorts” (Chan, Park, Savalia, Petersen, & Wig, 2014, p. E5003). However, it has been argued that the resting state should instead be viewed as just another task state (Morcom & Fletcher, 2007; Buckner, Krienen, & Yeo, 2013; Klein, 2014), one in which the experimenter has very little control over participants’ internal thoughts. Unsurprisingly, participants report engaging in a range of deliberate and explicit mental activities while lying in the scanner at rest, and the type of activity differs greatly across individuals (Fox, Spreng, Ellamil, Andrews-Hanna, & Christoff, 2015; Hurlburt, Alderson-Day, Fernyhough, & Kuhn, 2015) and relates to patterns of resting state connectivity (Andrews-Hanna, Reidler, Huang, & Buckner, 2010; Gorgolewski et al., 2014). Given the literature on age differences in chronic thought patterns and motivations (Charles & Carstensen, 2010; Hess, 2014), as well as differences in daily responsibilities and experiences, it is not unreasonable to assume that there may be cohort differences in the types of mental activities engaged in by younger and older adults at rest (cf. Mevel et al., 2013). Recent work also suggests that older adults “mind-wander” less than younger adults, at least during active tasks, and this reduction may reflect broader age differences in spontaneous cognition (for a recent review, see Maillet & Schacter, 2016b). Age groups may also differ in their propensity to fall asleep in the scanner, which can go unnoticed during resting state runs. Thus, age differences in resting state functional connectivity may at least partly reflect age differences in the type of thoughts engaged in at rest.

Another limitation of resting state functional connectivity, which is particularly problematic in the study of aging, is the susceptibility of these measures to motion and physiological artifact. It is now well established that differences in head motion can contribute to observed differences in functional connectivity at rest (Power, Barnes, Snyder, Schlaggar, & Petersen, 2012; Satterthwaite et al., 2012; Van Dijk, Sabuncu, & Buckner, 2012), and that older adults tend to move more than younger adults (Andrews-Hanna et al., 2007). While various methods have been proposed to remove motion artifact from the data (Patel & Bullmore, 2015; Satterthwaite et al., 2013), it remains unclear whether the effects of motion can ever fully be removed or indeed, whether removing/cleaning a larger proportion of the data for one group than another is a confounding effect in its own right (Geerligs, Rubinov, Cam-CAN, & Henson, 2015). Moreover, since functional connectivity measures reflect correlated fluctuations in the blood oxygenation level dependent (BOLD) signal, any physiological factors that are known to affect the BOLD signal will also affect measures of functional connectivity (Liu, 2013; Murphy, Birn, & Bandettini, 2013). Vascular health and neurovascular coupling are known to decline with age (D’Esposito, Deouell, & Gazzaley, 2003) and despite attempts to correct for these factors, age differences in resting state connectivity may be at least partly attributable to differences in these non-neural factors (Golestani, Kwinta, Strother, Khatamian, & Chen, 2016). Unlike rest, cognitive tasks include events of interest that can be explicitly modeled and contrasted, allowing for the decoupling of the signal of interest from that of noise and the comparison of relative differences in activation and connectivity across groups and conditions (Buckner, Snyder, Sanders, Raichle, & Morris, 2000; Henson, 2006; O’Reilly, Woolrich, Behrens, Smith, & Johansen-Berg, 2012). While some of the BOLD signal during task performance likely still reflects motion (Hillenbrand, Ivry, & Schlerf, 2016) and physiological artefact (Tsvetanov et al., 2015), the ability to model the signal of interest helps to obviate many of these concerns.

A final limitation of the resting state approach is the fact that measures obtained at rest are one step removed from the cognitive phenomena that researchers attempt to relate them to. As Geerligs and colleagues (2015) recently pointed out, there seems to be a trend in the literature to use resting state functional connectivity as a sort of trait measure – to obtain measures of connectivity during rest and then relate these measures to cognitive performance obtained offline (that is, outside the scanner, often on a different day or time; e.g., Damoiseaux et al., 2008; Geerligs, Renken, Saliasi, Maurits, & Lorist, 2015; Onoda, Ishihara, & Yamaguchi, 2012; Wang et al., 2010). When a correlation is found, the mechanism is inferred. For instance, Chan et al. (2014) recently showed that network segregation (or the ratio of within to between network connectivity) decreases with age and that this decrease relates to offline measures of long-term memory. They suggested that decreased network segregation “may reflect a fundamental age-related mechanism that negatively affects cognitive function” (Chan et al., 2014, pE5002). This conclusion may be correct, but it would be strengthened by showing that 1) decreased network segregation with age is also observed during a task relevant to long-term memory and 2) a direct relationship to concurrent task performance. While the brain’s functional network architecture may be similar across rest and task (Cole, Bassett, Power, Braver, & Petersen, 2014; Krienen, Yeo, & Buckner, 2014; Tavor et al., 2016), there is reason to believe that age differences in connectivity observed at rest may not hold in all task contexts (Campbell et al., 2016; Gallen, Turner, Adnan, & D’Esposito, 2016). For instance, Geerligs et al. (2015) showed that despite the overlap in network architecture seen across task states (rest, movie, and low-level audiovisual task in this case), an equally large proportion of connections differed across states and, critically, the effect of age on connectivity differed substantially across tasks. Beyond aging, this work makes the general point that resting state connectivity should not be used as a trait measure, as it only partly reflects some stable aspect of the individual. If one is interested in the cognitive implications of individual differences in functional connectivity, as so many researchers are, then it would seem most prudent to focus on connectivity measured during the cognitive function of interest.

What should the approach be?

The view that task-based studies and measures of cognition are important may not be new, and likely few would disagree with this standpoint. But there does seem to be a worrying trend in the literature to treat cognition as an afterthought, or to shy away from task-based designs because “age effects on functional connectivity during tasks are bound to be much more varied and complex to interpret…”(Ferreira & Busatto, 2013, p387). However, we would argue that in this complexity lies greater potential to advance the field. Without task data, we would not have arrived at concepts such as neural compensation (e.g., Cabeza et al., 2002; Grady et al., 1994), dedifferentiation (e.g., Dennis & Cabeza, 2011; Park et al., 2004), or the notion that older adults ‘max-out’ frontal recruitment at lower levels of demand (Cappell, Gmeindl, & Reuter-Lorenz, 2010; Reuter-Lorenz & Cappell, 2008). While notions of compensation have been called into question by recent work showing that frontal recruitment may simply reflect differential responding to experimental task demands (Campbell et al., 2016; Davis, Zhuang, Wright, & Tyler, 2014), none of these insights would have been possible without the use of experimental tasks.

Similarly, while resting state data contributed to the observation that DMN connectivity declines with age (Andrews-Hanna et al., 2007; Damoiseaux et al., 2008), task data were needed to identify the functional consequences of that decline by showing that older adults fail to suppress the DMN during externally directed attention (Grady et al., 2006; Lustig et al., 2003; Persson et al., 2007) and that this reduced suppression predicts poorer performance on the task (Miller et al., 2008; Sambataro et al., 2010; for a recent perspective, see Maillet & Schacter, 2016a). Decreased deactivation of the DMN may reflect an inability to suppress internal thought processes, perhaps as a consequence of insufficient engagement of the frontoparietal control network (FPN) as task demands increase (e.g., Campbell, Grady, Ng, & Hasher, 2012; Grady, Sarraf, Saverino, & Campbell, 2016; Turner & Spreng, 2015). When attention needs to be directed inward (i.e., during an autobiographical planning task), older adults show preserved connectivity between the DMN and frontoparietal network (FPN), but they then fail to switch connectivity of the FPN to the dorsal attention network (DAN) when attention must be redirected towards the external environment (Spreng & Schacter, 2012; see also Clapp, Rubens, Sabharwal, & Gazzaley, 2011). This latter finding was made possible by cross-task comparison, and future work may benefit from further cross-task/domain comparisons and experiments specifically designed to manipulate network recruitment and coupling.

Of course, resting state data remain useful insofar as they serve as a point of comparison across studies and aid in the generation of new hypotheses, which then require further testing with a task-based approach (Buckner et al., 2013). For instance, Salami and colleagues (2014) recently reported an age-related increase in resting state hippocampal connectivity that was related to poorer offline episodic memory. This finding alone would have been ambiguous in regard to mechanism, except that the authors went on to show that greater hippocampal connectivity at rest relates to under-activation and reduced hippocampal-cortical connectivity during memory encoding. While the causal direction of the relationship still cannot be determined, these findings suggest that greater chronic connectivity within the hippocampus restricts its ability to respond appropriately during active encoding. Other studies have also incorporated resting state and task data into the same experiment (e.g., Gallen et al., 2016; Geerligs, Rubinov, et al., 2015; Grady et al., 2016), showing age differences in the reconfiguration of networks moving from rest to task.

Several recent studies have started to focus on dynamic connectivity, or shifts in functional connectivity over time. This work has primarily focused on the resting state and shows that the brain’s network architecture is not static, but instead dynamically reconfigures into different “brain states” across the course of a run (Allen et al., 2014; Hutchison et al., 2013; Zalesky, Fornito, Cocchi, Gollo, & Breakspear, 2014). This work helps dispel the view, arguably promoted by the resting state literature, that the so-called “canonical resting-state networks” have fixed identities or topographies, templates for which are readily available (e.g., Allen et al., 2011; Shirer, Ryali, Rykhlevskaia, Menon, & Greicius, 2012). We know based on task data that these networks are not fixed, but dynamically reconfigure to meet with changing cognitive demands (e.g., Andrews-Hanna, Reidler, Sepulcre, Poulin, & Buckner, 2010; Fornito, Harrison, Zalesky, & Simons, 2012; Leech, Kamourieh, Beckmann, & Sharp, 2011; Scott, Hellyer, Hampshire, & Leech, 2015). Going forward, future dynamic connectivity work should determine how these different brain states relate to external task events (e.g., Bassett et al., 2011). There has been some suggestion that dynamic connectivity differs with age at rest (Madhyastha & Grabowski, 2014), and it would be interesting for future work to examine this possibility within the context of a task, the structure of which would enable one to predict when dynamic shifts should occur and the implications for cognition. Potentially even more informative are recent attempts to characterize age differences in effective connectivity during task performance (e.g., Legon et al., 2015; Waring, Addis, & Kensinger, 2013). This approach allows one to develop and test several competing models specifying the direction of influence between multiple systems, and thus goes beyond observations of reduced within- or increased between-network connectivity to ask how age affects directed connectivity between systems in the service of cognition (for a similar view, see Sala-Llonch, Bartrés-Faz, & Junqué, 2015).

How, then, should we move forward? The rise of resting state data seems to have coincided with a shift in focus towards methods development, with higher value placed on novel/sophisticated analysis techniques than experimental design (and in some ways this is certainly justified, as imaging methods are constantly evolving and being improved upon). However, in some cases, this shift has come at the expense of decades’ worth of cognitive psychology research regarding aging. The knowledge gained from this research is valuable and should be incorporated fully into studies of neurocognitive aging. Careful experiments designed to manipulate well-documented, known cognitive functions, rather than the mental free-for-all provided by the resting state, will help reduce unwanted noise in the data, allow for the testing of specific hypotheses, and tell us more about how the brain changes with age in a cognitively relevant way.

Conclusion

Understanding how neural function changes with age in a cognitively relevant manner is an extremely complex problem, made even more difficult by a number of confounding factors. For many, resting state data seem to simplify this problem by removing cognition from the equation and in so doing, allowing for an unbiased measure of ‘intrinsic’, task-free connectivity. However, as we have argued, the resting state does not provide some privileged glimpse of underlying network structure and should be viewed as just another task state – one that may introduce as many problems as it solves. If we want to know how age differences in network structure affect some cognitive function, we need experiments specifically designed to measure and manipulate that function. Indirect measures of brain function can only tell part of the story.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by National Institute on Aging Grant AG08441 to Daniel L. Schacter. We thank David Maillet for his helpful feedback on an earlier draft.

References

  1. Allen EA, Damaraju E, Plis SM, Erhardt EB, Eichele T, Calhoun VD. Tracking whole-brain connectivity dynamics in the resting state. Cerebral Cortex. 2014;24(3):663–676. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhs352. http://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhs352. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Allen EA, Erhardt EB, Damaraju E, Gruner W, Segall JM, Silva RF, Calhoun VD. A baseline for the multivariate comparison of resting-state networks. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience. 2011 Feb;5:2. doi: 10.3389/fnsys.2011.00002. http://doi.org/10.3389/fnsys.2011.00002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Andrews-Hanna JR, Reidler JS, Huang C, Buckner RL. Evidence for the default network’s role in spontaneous cognition. Journal of Neurophysiology. 2010;104(1):322–335. doi: 10.1152/jn.00830.2009. http://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00830.2009. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Andrews-Hanna JR, Reidler JS, Sepulcre J, Poulin R, Buckner RL. Functional-anatomic fractionation of the brain’s default network. Neuron. 2010;65(4):550–562. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2010.02.005. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2010.02.005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Andrews-Hanna JR, Snyder AZ, Vincent JL, Lustig C, Head D, Raichle ME, Buckner RL. Disruption of large-scale brain systems in advanced aging. Neuron. 2007;56(5):924–935. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2007.10.038. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2007.10.038. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Bassett DS, Wymbs NF, Porter MA, Mucha PJ, Carlson JM, Grafton ST. Dynamic reconfiguration of human brain networks during learning. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2011;108(18):7641–7646. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1018985108. http://doi.org/DOI10.1073/pnas.1018985108. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Buckner RL, Krienen FM, Yeo BTT. Opportunities and limitations of intrinsic functional connectivity MRI. Nature Neuroscience. 2013;16(7):832–837. doi: 10.1038/nn.3423. http://doi.org/10.1038/nn.3423. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Buckner RL, Snyder AZ, Sanders AL, Raichle ME, Morris JC. Functional brain imaging of young, nondemented, and demented older adults. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 2000;12:24–34. doi: 10.1162/089892900564046. http://doi.org/10.1162/089892900564046. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Burke DM, Shafto MA. Language and aging. In: Craik FIM, Salthouse TA, editors. The Handbook of Aging and Cognition. 3rd. New York, NY: Psychology Press; 2008. pp. 373–443. [Google Scholar]
  10. Cabeza R. Hemispheric asymmetry reduction in older adults: the HAROLD model. Psychology and Aging. 2002;17(1):85–100. doi: 10.1037//0882-7974.17.1.85. http://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.17.1.85. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Cabeza R, Anderson ND, Locantore JK, McIntosh AR. Aging gracefully: Compensatory brain activity in high-performing older adults. NeuroImage. 2002;17(3):1394–1402. doi: 10.1006/nimg.2002.1280. http://doi.org/10.1006/nimg.2002.1280. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Campbell KL, Grady CL, Ng C, Hasher L. Age differences in the frontoparietal cognitive control network: Implications for distractibility. Neuropsychologia. 2012;50:2212–2223. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2012.05.025. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0028393212002278. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Campbell KL, Samu D, Davis SW, Geerligs L, Mustafa A, Tyler LK. Robust resilience of the frontotemporal syntax system to aging. Journal of Neuroscience. 2016;36(19):5214–5227. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4561-15.2016. http://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4561-15.2016. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Campbell KL, Shafto MA, Wright P, Tsvetanov KA, Geerligs L, Cusack R, Tyler Idiosyncratic responding during movie-watching predicted by age differences in attentional control. Neurobiology of Aging. 2015;36(11):3045–3055. doi: 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2015.07.028. http://doi.org/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2015.07.028. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Cappell KA, Gmeindl L, Reuter-Lorenz PA. Age differences in prefontal recruitment during verbal working memory maintenance depend on memory load. Cortex. 2010;46(4):462–473. doi: 10.1016/j.cortex.2009.11.009. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2009.11.009. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Chan MY, Park DC, Savalia NK, Petersen SE, Wig GS. Decreased segregation of brain systems across the healthy adult lifespan. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2014;111(46):E4997–E5006. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1415122111. http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1415122111. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Charles ST, Carstensen LL. Social and emotional aging. Annual Review of Psychology. 2010;61:383–409. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100448. http://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100448. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Clapp WC, Rubens MT, Sabharwal J, Gazzaley A. Deficit in switching between functional brain networks underlies the impact of multitasking on working memory in older adults. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2011;108(17):7212–7217. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1015297108. http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1015297108. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Cole MW, Bassett DS, Power JD, Braver TS, Petersen SE. Intrinsic and Task-Evoked Network Architectures of the Human Brain. Neuron. 2014;83(1):238–251. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2014.05.014. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2014.05.014. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Coxon JP, Goble DJ, Leunissen I, Van Impe A, Wenderoth N, Swinnen SP. Functional brain activation associated with inhibitory control deficits in older adults. Cerebral Cortex. 2016;26(1):12–22. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhu165. http://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhu165. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Craik FIM. On the transfer of information from temporary to permanent memory. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series B. 1983;302:341–358. JOUR. [Google Scholar]
  22. Craik FIM, Byrd M. Aging and cognitive deficits: The role of attentional response. In: Craik FIM, Trehub S, editors. Aging and Cognitive Processes. New York: Plenum Press; 1982. pp. 191–211. [Google Scholar]
  23. D’Esposito M, Deouell LY, Gazzaley A. Alterations in the BOLD fMRI signal with ageing and disease: a challenge for neuroimaging. Nature Reviews. Neuroscience. 2003;4(11):863–872. doi: 10.1038/nrn1246. http://doi.org/10.1038/nrn1246. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Damoiseaux JS, Beckmann CF, Sanz Arigita EJ, Barkhof F, Scheltens P, Stam CJ, Rombouts SARB. Reduced resting-state brain activity in the “default network” in normal aging. Cerebral Cortex. 2008;18(8):1856–1864. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhm207. http://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhm207. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Davis SW, Dennis NA, Daselaar SM, Fleck MS, Cabeza R. Que PASA? the posterior-anterior shift in aging. Cerebral Cortex. 2008;18(5):1201–1209. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhm155. http://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhm155. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Davis SW, Zhuang J, Wright P, Tyler LK. Age-related sensitivity to task-related modulation of language-processing networks. Neuropsychologia. 2014;63:107–115. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.08.017. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.08.017. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Dennis NA, Cabeza R. Age-related dedifferentiation of learning systems: An fMRI study of implicit and explicit learning. Neurobiology of Aging. 2011;32(12):2318.e17–2318.e30. doi: 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2010.04.004. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2010.04.004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Ferreira LK, Busatto GF. Resting-state functional connectivity in normal brain aging. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews. 2013;37(3):384–400. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2013.01.017. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2013.01.017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Fornito A, Harrison BJ, Zalesky A, Simons JS. Competitive and cooperative dynamics of large-scale brain functional networks supporting recollection. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2012;109(31):12788–12793. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1204185109. http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1204185109. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Fox KCR, Spreng RN, Ellamil M, Andrews-Hanna JR, Christoff K. The wandering brain: Meta-analysis of functional neuroimaging studies of mind-wandering and related spontaneous thought processes. NeuroImage. 2015;111:611–621. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.02.039. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.02.039. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Gallen CL, Turner GR, Adnan A, D’Esposito M. Reconfiguration of brain network architecture to support executive control in aging. Neurobiology of Aging. 2016 doi: 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2016.04.003. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2016.04.003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Geerligs L, Renken RJ, Saliasi E, Maurits NM, Lorist MM. A brain-wide study of age-related changes in functional connectivity. Cerebral Cortex. 2015;25(7):1987–1999. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhu012. http://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhu012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Geerligs L, Rubinov M, Cam-CAN, Henson RN. State and trait components of functional connectivity: Individual differences vary with mental state. Journal of Neuroscience. 2015;35(41):13949–13961. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1324-15.2015. http://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1324-15.2015. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Golestani AM, Kwinta JB, Strother SC, Khatamian YB, Chen JJ. The association between cerebrovascular reactivity and resting-state fMRI functional connectivity in healthy adults: The influence of basal carbon dioxide. NeuroImage. 2016;132:301–313. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.02.051. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.02.051. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Gorgolewski KJ, Lurie D, Urchs S, Kipping JA, Craddock RC, Milham MP, Smallwood J. A correspondence between individual differences in the brain’s intrinsic functional architecture and the content and form of self-generated thoughts. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(5) doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0097176. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0097176. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Grady CL. Cognitive neuroscience of aging. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 2008;1124:127–144. doi: 10.1196/annals.1440.009. http://doi.org/10.1196/annals.1440.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Grady CL, Maisog JM, Horwitz B, Ungerleider LG, Mentis MJ, Salerno JA, Haxby JV. Age-related changes in cortical blood flow activation during visual processing of faces and location. The Journal of Neuroscience. 1994;14(3):1450–1462. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.14-03-01450.1994. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Grady CL, McIntosh AR, Craik FIM. Task-related activity in prefrontal cortex and its relation to recognition memory performance in young and old adults. Neuropsychologia. 2005;43(10):1466–1481. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2004.12.016. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2004.12.016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Grady CL, Sarraf S, Saverino C, Campbell K. Age differences in the functional interactions among the default, frontoparietal control and dorsal attention networks. Neurobiology of Aging. 2016;41:159–172. doi: 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2016.02.020. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2016.02.020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Grady CL, Springer MV, Hongwanishkul D, McIntosh AR, Winocur G. Age-related changes in brain activity across the adult lifespan. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 2006;18(2):227–241. doi: 10.1162/089892906775783705. http://doi.org/10.1162/089892906775783705. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Gutchess AH, Welsh RC, Hedden T, Bangert A, Minear M, Liu LL, Park DC. Aging and the neural correlates of successful picture encoding: Frontal activations compensate for decreased medial-temporal activity. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 2005;17(1):84–96. doi: 10.1162/0898929052880048. http://doi.org/10.1162/0898929052880048. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Hasher L, Zacks RT. Working memory, comprehension, and aging: A review and a new view. In: Bower GH, editor. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation. Vol. 22. New York: Academic Press; 1988. pp. 193–225. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60041-9. [Google Scholar]
  43. Henson R. Forward inference using functional neuroimaging: Dissociations versus associations. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 2006;10(2):64–69. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2005.12.005. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2005.12.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Hess TM. Selective engagement of cognitive resources: Motivational influences on older adults’ cognitive functioning. Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2014;9(4):388–407. doi: 10.1177/1745691614527465. http://doi.org/10.1177/1745691614527465. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Hillenbrand SF, Ivry RB, Schlerf JE. Impact of task-related changes in heart rate on estimation of hemodynamic response and model fit. NeuroImage. 2016;132:455–468. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.02.068. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.02.068. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Horn JL, Cattell RB. Age differences in fluid and crystallized intelligence. Acta Psychologica. 1967;26:107–129. doi: 10.1016/0001-6918(67)90011-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Hurlburt RT, Alderson-Day B, Fernyhough C, Kuhn S. What goes on in the resting-state? A qualitative glimpse into resting-state experience in the scanner. Frontiers in Psychology. 2015 Oct;6:1–16. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01535. http://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01535. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Hutchison RM, Womelsdorf T, Allen EA, Bandettini PA, Calhoun VD, Corbetta M, Chang C. Dynamic functional connectivity: Promise, issues, and interpretations. NeuroImage. 2013;80:360–378. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.05.079. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.05.079. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Kausler DH. Experimental psychology and human aging. New York: Wiley; 1982. [Google Scholar]
  50. Klein C. The brain at rest: What it is doing and why that matters. Philosophy of Science. 2014;81(5):974–985. http://doi.org/10.1086/677692. [Google Scholar]
  51. Krienen FM, Yeo BTT, Buckner RL. Reconfigurable task-dependent functional coupling modes cluster around a core functional architecture. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 2014;369(1653):20130526. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2013.0526. JOUR. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Leech R, Kamourieh S, Beckmann CF, Sharp DJ. Fractionating the default mode network: Distinct contributions of the ventral and dorsal posterior cingulate cortex to cognitive control. Journal of Neuroscience. 2011;31(9):3217–3224. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5626-10.2011. http://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5626-10.2011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Legon W, Punzell S, Dowlati E, Adams SE, Stiles B, Moran RJ, Moran RJ. Altered prefrontal excitation/inhibition balance and prefrontal output: Markers of aging in human memory networks. Cerebral Cortex. 2015 doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhv200. http://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhv200. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Lindenberger U, Mayr U. Cognitive aging: is there a dark side to environmental support? Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 2014;18(1):7–15. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2013.10.006. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2013.10.006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Liu TT. Neurovascular factors in resting-state functional MRI. NeuroImage. 2013;80:339–348. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.04.071. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.04.071. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Lustig C, Snyder AZ, Bhakta M, O’Brien KC, McAvoy M, Raichle ME, Buckner RL. Functional deactivations: Change with age and dementia of the Alzheimer type. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2003;100(24):14504–14509. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2235925100. http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2235925100. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Madden DJ, Bennett IJ, Burzynska A, Potter GG, Chen N-K, Song AW. Diffusion tensor imaging of cerebral white matter integrity in cognitive aging. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta. 2012;1822(3):386–400. doi: 10.1016/j.bbadis.2011.08.003. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbadis.2011.08.003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Madhyastha TM, Grabowski TJ. Age-related differences in the dynamic architecture of intrinsic networks. Brain Connectivity. 2014;4(4):231–241. doi: 10.1089/brain.2013.0205. http://doi.org/10.1089/brain.2013.0205. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Maillet D, Rajah MN. Age-related differences in brain activity in the subsequent memory paradigm: A meta-analysis. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews. 2014;45:246–257. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2014.06.006. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2014.06.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Maillet D, Schacter DL. Default-network and aging: Beyond the task-negative perspective. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 2016a doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2016.05.009. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2016.05.009. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Maillet D, Schacter DL. From mind wandering to involuntary retrieval: Age-related differences in spontaneous cognitive processes. Neuropsychologia. 2016b;80:142–156. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2015.11.017. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2015.11.017. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Mevel K, Landeau B, Fouquet M, La Joie R, Villain N, Mézenge F, Chételat G. Age effect on the default mode network, inner thoughts, and cognitive abilities. Neurobiology of Aging. 2013;34(4):1292–1301. doi: 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2012.08.018. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2012.08.018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Miller SL, Celone K, DePeau K, Diamond E, Dickerson BC, Rentz D, Sperling RA. Age-related memory impairment associated with loss of parietal deactivation but preserved hippocampal activation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2008;105(6):2181–2186. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0706818105. http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0706818105. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Morcom AM, Fletcher PC. Does the brain have a baseline? Why we should be resisting a rest. NeuroImage. 2007;37(4):1073–1082. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.06.019. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.09.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Morcom AM, Good CD, Frackowiak RSJ, Rugg MD. Age effects on the neural correlates of successful memory encoding. Brain. 2003;126(1):213–229. doi: 10.1093/brain/awg020. http://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awg020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. Morcom AM, Johnson W. Neural reorganization and compensation in aging. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 2015;27(7):1275–1285. doi: 10.1162/jocn_a_00783. JOUR. http://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00783. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Murphy K, Birn RM, Bandettini PA. Resting-state fMRI confounds and cleanup. NeuroImage. 2013;80:349–359. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.04.001. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.04.001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  68. O’Reilly JX, Woolrich MW, Behrens TEJ, Smith SM, Johansen-Berg H. Tools of the trade: Psychophysiological interactions and functional connectivity. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience. 2012;7(5):604–609. doi: 10.1093/scan/nss055. http://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nss055. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  69. Onoda K, Ishihara M, Yamaguchi S. Decreased functional connectivity by aging is associated with cognitive decline. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 2012;24(11):2186–2198. doi: 10.1162/jocn_a_00269. http://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00269. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  70. Park DC, Polk TA, Park R, Minear M, Savage A, Smith MR. Aging reduces neural specialization in ventral visual cortex. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2004;101(35):13091–13095. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0405148101. http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0405148101. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  71. Patel AX, Bullmore ET. A wavelet-based estimator of the degrees of freedom in denoised fMRI time series for probabilistic testing of functional connectivity and brain graphs. Neuroimage. 2015 doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.04.052. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.04.052. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  72. Persson J, Lustig C, Nelson JK, Reuter-Lorenz PA. Age differences in deactivation: A link to cognitive control? Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 2007;19(6):1021–1032. doi: 10.1162/jocn.2007.19.6.1021. http://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2007.19.6.1021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  73. Power JD, Barnes KA, Snyder AZ, Schlaggar BL, Petersen SE. Spurious but systematic correlations in functional connectivity MRI networks arise from subject motion. NeuroImage. 2012;59:2142–2154. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.10.018. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.10.018. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  74. Raz N, Rodrigue KM. Differential aging of the brain: Patterns, cognitive correlates and modifiers. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews. 2006;30(6):730–748. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2006.07.001. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2006.07.001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  75. Reuter-Lorenz PA, Cappell KA. Neurocognitive aging and the compensation hypothesis. Current Directions in Psychological Science. 2008;17(3):177–182. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2008.00570.x. [Google Scholar]
  76. Reuter-Lorenz PA, Jonides J, Smith EE, Hartley A, Miller A, Marshuetz C, Koeppe RA. Age differences in the frontal lateralization of verbal and spatial working memory revealed by PET. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 2000;12(1):174–187. doi: 10.1162/089892900561814. http://doi.org/10.1162/089892900561814. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  77. Sala-Llonch R, Bartrés-Faz D, Junqué C. Reorganization of brain networks in aging: a review of functional connectivity studies. Frontiers in Psychology. 2015 May;6:663. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00663. http://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00663. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  78. Salami A, Pudas S, Nyberg L. Elevated hippocampal resting-state connectivity underlies deficient neurocognitive function in aging. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2014 doi: 10.1073/pnas.1410233111. 201410233. http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1410233111. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  79. Salthouse TA. The processing-speed theory of adult age differences in cognition. Psychological Review. 1996;103(3):403–428. doi: 10.1037/0033-295x.103.3.403. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  80. Sambataro F, Murty VP, Callicott JH, Tan H-Y, Das S, Weinberger DR, Mattay VS. Age-related alterations in default mode network: Impact on working memory performance. Neurobiology of Aging. 2010;31(5):839–852. doi: 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2008.05.022. JOUR. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2008.05.022. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  81. Satterthwaite TD, Elliott MA, Gerraty RT, Ruparel K, Loughead J, Calkins ME, Wolf DH. An improved framework for confound regression and filtering for control of motion artifact in the preprocessing of resting-state functional connectivity data. NeuroImage. 2013;64:240–256. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.08.052. JOUR. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.08.052. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  82. Satterthwaite TD, Wolf DH, Loughead J, Ruparel K, Elliott MA, Hakonarson H, Gur RE. Impact of in-scanner head motion on multiple measures of functional connectivity: Relevance for studies of neurodevelopment in youth. NeuroImage. 2012;60:623–632. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.12.063. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.12.063. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  83. Scott G, Hellyer PJ, Hampshire A, Leech R. Exploring spatiotemporal network transitions in task functional MRI. Human Brain Mapping. 2015;36(4):1348–1364. doi: 10.1002/hbm.22706. http://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.22706. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  84. Sebastian A, Baldermann C, Feige B, Katzev M, Scheller E, Hellwig B, Klöppel S. Differential effects of age on subcomponents of response inhibition. Neurobiology of Aging. 2013;34(9):2183–2193. doi: 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2013.03.013. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2013.03.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  85. Shafto MA, Stamatakis EA, Tam PP, Tyler LK. Word retrieval failures in old age: The relationship between structure and function. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 2010;22(7):1530–1540. doi: 10.1162/jocn.2009.21321. http://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2009.21321. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  86. Shafto MA, Tyler LK. Language in the aging brain: The network dynamics of cognitive decline and preservation. Science. 2014;346(6209):583–587. doi: 10.1126/science.1254404. http://doi.org/10.1126/science.1254404. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  87. Shirer WR, Ryali S, Rykhlevskaia E, Menon V, Greicius MD. Decoding subject-driven cognitive states with whole-brain connectivity patterns. Cerebral Cortex. 2012;22(1):158–165. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhr099. http://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhr099. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  88. Spreng RN, Schacter DL. Default network modulation and large-scale network interactivity in healthy young and old adults. Cerebral Cortex. 2012;22(11):2610–2621. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhr339. http://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhr339. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  89. Spreng RN, Wojtowicz M, Grady CL. Reliable differences in brain activity between young and old adults: A quantitative meta-analysis across multiple cognitive domains. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews. 2010;34(8):1178–1194. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2010.01.009. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2010.01.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  90. Tavor I, Parker Jones O, Mars RB, Smith SM, Behrens TE, Jbabdi S. Task-free MRI predicts individual differences in brain activity during task performance. Science. 2016;352(6282):216–220. doi: 10.1126/science.aad8127. http://doi.org/10.1126/science.aad8127. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  91. Tsvetanov KA, Henson RN, Tyler LK, Davis SW, Shafto MA, Taylor JR, Rowe JB. The effect of ageing on fMRI: Correction for the confounding effects of vascular reactivity evaluated by joint fMRI and MEG in 335 adults. Human Brain Mapping. 2015;36(6):2248–2269. doi: 10.1002/hbm.22768. http://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.22768. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  92. Turner GR, Spreng RN. Prefrontal engagement and reduced default network suppression co-occur and are dynamically coupled in older adults: The default–executive coupling hypothesis of aging. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 2015;27(12):2462–2476. doi: 10.1162/jocn_a_00869. JOUR. http://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00869. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  93. Van Dijk KRA, Sabuncu MR, Buckner RL. The influence of head motion on intrinsic functional connectivity MRI. NeuroImage. 2012;59:431–438. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.07.044. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.07.044. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  94. Vanderwal T, Kelly C, Eilbott J, Mayes LC, Castellanos FX. Inscapes: A movie paradigm to improve compliance in functional magnetic resonance imaging. NeuroImage. 2015;122:222–232. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.07.069. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.07.069. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  95. Wang L, LaViolette P, O’Keefe K, Putcha D, Bakkour A, Van Dijk KRA, Sperling RA. Intrinsic connectivity between the hippocampus and posteromedial cortex predicts memory performance in cognitively intact older individuals. NeuroImage. 2010;51(2):910–917. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.02.046. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.02.046. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  96. Waring JD, Addis DR, Kensinger EA. Effects of aging on neural connectivity underlying selective memory for emotional scenes. Neurobiology of Aging. 2013;34(2):451–467. doi: 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2012.03.011. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2012.03.011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  97. Zalesky A, Fornito A, Cocchi L, Gollo LL, Breakspear M. Time-resolved resting-state brain networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2014;111(28):10341–10346. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1400181111. http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1400181111. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES