Network segregation is associated with processing speed in the cognitively healthy oldest-ol

Abstract

The brain is organized into systems and networks of interacting components. The functional connections among these components give insight into the brain's organization and may underlie some cognitive effects of aging. Examining the relationship between individual differences in brain organization and cognitive function in older adults who have reached oldest old ages with healthy cognition can help us understand how these networks support healthy cognitive aging. We investigated functional network segregation in 146 cognitively healthy participants aged 85+ in the McKnight Brain Aging Registry. We found that the segregation of the association system and the individual networks within the association system [the fronto-parietal network (FPN), cingulo-opercular network (CON) and default mode network (DMN)], has strong associations with overall cognition and processing speed. We also provide a healthy oldest-old (85+) cortical parcellation that can be used in future work in this age group. This study shows that network segregation of the oldest-old brain is closely linked to cognitive performance. This work adds to the growing body of knowledge about differentiation in the aged brain by demonstrating that cognitive ability is associated with differentiated functional networks in very old individuals representing successful cognitive aging.

Data availability

Code is available for node creation at https://github.com/Visscher-Lab/MBAR_oldestold_nodes and code and post processed data for statistical analyses and figures is available at https://github.com/Visscher-Lab/MBAR_segregation_paperBecause these data come from a select group of people who have lived to oldest-old ages, making them potentially identifiable, raw data is not available. More detailed data than the post processed data available online can be requested by submitting a request with explanation of intended use of the data to kmv@uab.edu. Requests are reviewed by a committee of principal investigators of the McKnight brain aging registry.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Sara A Nolin

    School of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, United States
    For correspondence
    nolin@musc.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Mary E Faulkner

    School of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Paul Stewart

    School of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Leland L Fleming

    School of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-4047-9031
  5. Stacy Merritt

    Miller School of Medicine, University of Miami, Miami, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Roxanne F Rezaei

    Evelyn F and William L McKnight Brain Institute, University of Florida, Gainesville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Prad K Bharadwaj

    Evelyn F McKnight Brain Institute, University of Arizona, Tucson, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Mary Kate Franchetti

    Evelyn F McKnight Brain Institute, University of Arizona, Tucson, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. David A Raichlen

    University of Southern California, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Courtney J Jessup

    Evelyn F McKnight Brain Institute, University of Arizona, Tucson, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Lloyd Edwards

    School of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. G Alex Hishaw

    Evelyn F McKnight Brain Institute, University of Arizona, Tucson, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Emily J Van Etten

    Evelyn F McKnight Brain Institute, University of Arizona, Tucson, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Theodore P Trouard

    Evelyn F McKnight Brain Institute, University of Arizona, Tucson, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. David Geldmacher

    School of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Virginia G Wadley

    School of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  17. Noam Alperin

    Miller School of Medicine, University of Miami, Miami, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  18. Eric S Porges

    Evelyn F and William L McKnight Brain Institute, University of Florida, Gainesville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  19. Adam J Woods

    Evelyn F and William L McKnight Brain Institute, University of Florida, Gainesville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  20. Ron A Cohen

    Evelyn F and William L McKnight Brain Institute, University of Florida, Gainesville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  21. Bonnie E Levin

    School of Medicine, University of Miami, Miami, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  22. Tatjana Rundek

    School of Medicine, University of Miami, Miami, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  23. Gene E Alexander

    Evelyn F McKnight Brain Institute, University of Arizona, Tucson, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  24. Kristina Visscher

    School of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, United States
    For correspondence
    kmv@uab.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-0737-4024

Funding

Evelyn F. McKnight Brain Research Foundation

  • Ron A Cohen
  • Bonnie E Levin
  • Tatjana Rundek
  • Gene E Alexander
  • Kristina Visscher

National Institute of Health/National institute of Neurological Disorder and Stroke (T32NS061788-12 07/2008)

  • Sara A Nolin

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Ethics

Human subjects: Informed consent was obtained from all participants and approval for the study was received from the Institutional Review Boards at each of the data collection sites including University of Alabama at Birmingham (IRB protocol X160113004), University of Florida (IRB protocol 201300162), University of Miami (IRB protocol 20151783), and University of Arizona (IRB protocol 1601318818).

Copyright

© 2025, Nolin et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 95
    views
  • 25
    downloads
  • 0
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Sara A Nolin
  2. Mary E Faulkner
  3. Paul Stewart
  4. Leland L Fleming
  5. Stacy Merritt
  6. Roxanne F Rezaei
  7. Prad K Bharadwaj
  8. Mary Kate Franchetti
  9. David A Raichlen
  10. Courtney J Jessup
  11. Lloyd Edwards
  12. G Alex Hishaw
  13. Emily J Van Etten
  14. Theodore P Trouard
  15. David Geldmacher
  16. Virginia G Wadley
  17. Noam Alperin
  18. Eric S Porges
  19. Adam J Woods
  20. Ron A Cohen
  21. Bonnie E Levin
  22. Tatjana Rundek
  23. Gene E Alexander
  24. Kristina Visscher
(2025)
Network segregation is associated with processing speed in the cognitively healthy oldest-ol
eLife 14:e78076.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.78076

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.78076

Further reading

    1. Genetics and Genomics
    2. Neuroscience
    Tanya Wolff, Mark Eddison ... Gerald M Rubin
    Research Article

    The central complex (CX) plays a key role in many higher-order functions of the insect brain including navigation and activity regulation. Genetic tools for manipulating individual cell types, and knowledge of what neurotransmitters and neuromodulators they express, will be required to gain mechanistic understanding of how these functions are implemented. We generated and characterized split-GAL4 driver lines that express in individual or small subsets of about half of CX cell types. We surveyed neuropeptide and neuropeptide receptor expression in the central brain using fluorescent in situ hybridization. About half of the neuropeptides we examined were expressed in only a few cells, while the rest were expressed in dozens to hundreds of cells. Neuropeptide receptors were expressed more broadly and at lower levels. Using our GAL4 drivers to mark individual cell types, we found that 51 of the 85 CX cell types we examined expressed at least one neuropeptide and 21 expressed multiple neuropeptides. Surprisingly, all co-expressed a small molecule neurotransmitter. Finally, we used our driver lines to identify CX cell types whose activation affects sleep, and identified other central brain cell types that link the circadian clock to the CX. The well-characterized genetic tools and information on neuropeptide and neurotransmitter expression we provide should enhance studies of the CX.

    1. Neuroscience
    François Osiurak, Giovanni Federico ... Mathieu Lesourd
    Research Article

    Our propensity to materiality, which consists in using, making, creating, and passing on technologies, has enabled us to shape the physical world according to our ends. To explain this proclivity, scientists have calibrated their lens to either low-level skills such as motor cognition or high-level skills such as language or social cognition. Yet, little has been said about the intermediate-level cognitive processes that are directly involved in mastering this materiality, that is, technical cognition. We aim to focus on this intermediate level for providing new insights into the neurocognitive bases of human materiality. Here, we show that a technical-reasoning process might be specifically at work in physical problem-solving situations. We found via two distinct neuroimaging studies that the area PF (parietal F) within the left parietal lobe is central for this reasoning process in both tool-use and non-tool-use physical problem-solving and can work along with social-cognitive skills to resolve day-to-day interactions that combine social and physical constraints. Our results demonstrate the existence of a specific cognitive module in the human brain dedicated to materiality, which might be the supporting pillar allowing the accumulation of technical knowledge over generations. Intensifying research on technical cognition could nurture a comprehensive framework that has been missing in fields interested in how early and modern humans have been interacting with the physical world through technology, and how this interaction has shaped our history and culture.