Task performance was characterized by validity and accuracy. Valid tasks were those in which the subject pressed one of the assigned three buttons during the 2-s stimulus period. Average validity was 93 ± 10%. Accuracy, assessed for valid events, was the fraction of events where the subject pressed the correct button. Average accuracy was 79 ± 24%. Validity and accuracy decrease significantly with age (R=-0.40, and R=-0.45, respectively, Figs. 1A—B). Older subjects tended to respond too slowly, reducing both validity and accuracy.
At full resolution, the SAST effectively evoked strong HRFs (CNR > 3) across the majority of cerebral cortex. Coverage, the fraction of cortex with CNR > 3, range was 42—83%, mean of 68 ± 8%, where the variability noted is the SEM. Coverage was not affected by age (Fig. 1D). However, smoothing did increase cortical coverage substantially (Fig. 1E), with a coverage range of 69—97%, mean of 87 ± 7%.Consistent with our previous work51, a subset of activated cortex responded with nHRFs (negative fraction), with a range of 12—47%, mean 27 ± 8% across sessions. Additionally, there was a marginally significant trend for a decrease (R=-0.25, p = 0.064) in negative fraction with age (Fig. 1C). The negative fraction and its age trend were not significantly affected by smoothing.
We first show the results of correlations between age and the spatial mean (Fig. 2) and the spatial variability (Fig. 3) of six HRF parameters: CNR, peak amplitude (PA), under/overshoot amplitude, TTP, FWHM, and HFPF. Next, we elaborate on those HRF parameters that significantly correlated with age (Figs. 4—7).
Figures 2 and 3 show correlations between age and the spatial means and standard deviations, respectively, of pHRF (first rows) and nHRF (second rows) parameters, respectively. In all plots, a thick red regression line indicates a significant (p < 0.05) age-related trend.
For pHRFs, mean CNR significantly (p = 0.002, R = -0.41), decreases with age. There is also a strong, significantly negative correlation between CNR spatial variability and age (R = -0.59, p ~ 0). For PA, there is a marginally significant and modest (R=-0.22, p = 0.10) drop in amplitude with age, which is consistent with the CNR drop. PA variability also significantly drops with age (R = -0.48, p = 0). Both the spatial mean and variability of undershoot amplitude did not significantly correlate with age, although there is trend for age-related increase in mean undershoot amplitude (R = 0.20, 0.001%/year, p = 0.15). The undershoot somewhat weakens with age (becomes less negative), which is consistent with the correlation between peak and undershoot amplitude previously reported.51
We tested for correlations between task performance and PA and CNR but found no significant trends. Task accuracy, for example, had age correlations of R=–0.083 (p = 0.55) for amplitude and R = 0.006 (p = 0.95) for CNR. Similarly weak and insignificant correlations were observed for the validity with mean PA and CNR, and likewise for the standard deviations of the PA and CNR distributions.
Dynamical parameters show three strong age-dependent correlations. First, the spatial variability of FWHM significantly increased with age (R = 0.52, p ~ 0). Additionally, there were substantial increases in both the mean and spatial variability of HFPF with age (R = 0.44, p = 0.001).
Spatial smoothing does affect these correlations (Figs. S1 & S2). Smoothing weakens the downward trend of CNR with age to -0.03/year (p = 0.063). The downward trend of mean PA and undershoot also both weaken toward insignificance. However, the significant dynamical trends in FWHM variability, and HFPF mean and variability were largely unaffected by smoothing.
For nHRFs, as shown in the second (bottom) rows of Figs. 3 and 4, our results did not show any significant age trends in the moments of the CNR or overshoot amplitude distributions. There was a marginal trend (p = 0.066) for a strengthening of mean PA (peak negative HRF amplitude becomes more negative with age). Dynamically, there were several significant trends. Similar to the pHRFs, mean HFPF increased significantly with age (p = 0.002). Likewise, nHRF spatial variability increased for FWHM (p = 0.045) and HFPF (p = 0.003). In addition, there was a significant trend for the spatial variability of TTP to increase with age (R = 0.34, 0.01/year, p = 0.011). The mean FWHM also had a marginally significant trend to decrease with age (R = 0.26, p = 0.055). Smoothing again had little effect on these trends for nHRFs (Figs. S1 & S2).
We further investigated the spatial variability of HRF PAs across three age groups of young, middle-age, and old. Figure 4 shows PA histograms of strong pHRFs and nHRFs for three example subjects, each representative of an age group: a 29-year-old female adult for the young group (Fig. 4A), a 50-year-old male for the middle-age group (Fig. 4B), and a 64-year-old female for the old group (Fig. 4C). For each subject, on overlay of PAs is shown on cortical surfaces below the corresponding histogram. The overlays for the young subject show greater spatial prevalence of strongly positive PAs (orange areas), which become less prevalent for the middle-aged subject (Fig. 4B), and least for the older subject (Fig. 4C). This age trend is also evident from comparison of their histograms (first row in Fig. 4A–C). Thus, the reduction of pHRF PA variability with age appears to be associated with a moderation of response amplitudes in sensory regions such as lateral occipital (visual) and superior temporal (auditory) areas. This effect is also evident in normalized distributions of PA averaged across the three age groups (Fig. 4D). For pHRFs, the distributions show a small shift of the mode to the right, while a “tail” of strong activation decreases. These two age-dependent effects, which are subtly evident in Fig. 4D, can be quantified by examining the behavior of quintiles of the amplitude distribution (Fig. S3A). The upward trend in the mode is seen in the significant (p = 0.006) positive trend in the 20th percentile, while the erosion of the tail with age is evident in the significant (p = 0.028) negative trend at the 80th percentile.
For nHRFs, the mean distributions of PAs show a simpler behavior, with the distribution steadily shifting toward greater (more negative) amplitudes with increasing age. Quantifying by quintiles (Fig. S3B), there are significant downward trends in 40th, 60th, and 80th percentiles.
As mentioned above, regression showed a substantial increase in FWHM spatial variability with age (Fig. 3), with a stronger correlation for pHRFs (R = 0.52) than nHRFs (R = 0.27) (Fig. 3). These results are further understood by examining the FWHM distributions (Fig. 5). FWHM distributions of strong HRFs and their corresponding maps overlaid on gray-white interface surfaces are shown for the same representative subjects used for Fig. 4. Average HRFs (5-mm-diam gray-matter disk) in six example ROIs are plotted for each subject. The young subject (Fig. 5A) had a relatively narrow, unimodal pHRF FWHM distribution with a peak at 4.7 sec. The overlay of FWHM on the cortical surface is consistent with the fairly stable dynamics reported previously51. Example HRFs illustrate stereotypical HRF behavior. However, the FWHM distribution for the middle-aged adult was notably broader (Fig. 5B), with many narrower HRFs across cortex evident on the overlay. Example HRFs illustrate the mixture of stereotypically broad as well as narrower HRFs. This broadening of the FWHM distribution toward narrower HRFs is even stronger for the older adult (Fig. 5C), with the distribution becoming strongly bimodal, and the diversity of FWHM values evident on the surface overlay. Example HRFs illustrate these narrow and broad classes of HRFs. FWHM distributions from all subjects were normalized by their peak values and averaged together for young (< 40 years), middle (40—59 years), and old (≥ 60 years) groups (Fig. 5D). Clearly, pHRFs with lower FWHM values are less likely in the young group (blue distribution), becoming more common with advancing age, so that the older group shows a bimodal distribution (red distribution), with a distinct mode of narrow HRFs, as well as a greater representation of unusually broad HRFs. Examination of FWHM distributions for all subjects (Fig. S4) confirm this tendency toward broader, bimodal distributions with increasing age.
Scatter plots of PA versus FWHM show that largest amplitudes are associated with a fairly narrow temporal range for both positive and negative HRFs (Fig. 6A) in the same three example subjects used previously. Tuning curves obtained from this data emphasize this feature and show strong changes with age (Fig. 6B). When these curves are averaged over our three age groups, the age-related changes become clear (Fig. 6C). For positive HRFs, tuning is sharpest for the young group (blue), becoming broader for the middle (green) and older (red) groups. Moreover, the old group exhibits a tendency toward a second peak of faster dynamics. For negative HRFs, the behavior is reversed, with tuning broadest for the young group and becoming sharper for both middle and older groups with a possible second mode of slower dynamics emerging for the older group. The changes in tuning width indeed vary significantly with age (Fig. 6D) for both positive HRFs (R = 0.49, p < 10–4) and somewhat more weakly for negative HRFs (R = 0.29, p = 0.032).
Finally, we found a significant association between the age and the HFPF of both pHRFs and nHRFs for both spatial mean (Fig. 2) and standard deviation (Fig. 3). In Fig. 7, these age-related trends are illustrated for the same representative subjects used previously. Cortical areas with strong HFPF were lowest for the young subject (note prevalence of dark blue clusters in Fig. 7A), becoming greater for the middle-aged subject (Fig. 7B, increasing prevalence of cyan clusters) and greatest for the older subject (Fig. 7C). Sample HRFs show the character of the high-frequency oscillations in these three subjects.
HRF power spectra were normalized by their peak value at frequencies < 0.1 Hz for all 55 sessions (Fig. 7D). All but one session show spectra that peak at a low frequency with a tail toward higher frequencies. However, for many middle-aged and older subjects, the spectrum also features a smaller peak at a relatively high frequency (> 0.2 Hz). Notably, one session (female, age 58) showed an atypical spectrum with a larger peak at high frequency. When these normalized spectra were averaged over our three age groups (Fig. 7D, middle), the low-frequency spectrum was narrowest for older (red), then middle-aged (green), and broadest for the young (blue). In addition, the power spectra for both middle-age and old groups show a distinct second peak at high frequency.
The trend toward narrower FWHM and greater HFPF are necessarily linked. To investigate, we tested whether the trend between the HFPF and age was different for pHRFs with FWHM in narrow-mode range (1.5—3.5 s) versus those in the wide-mode range (4—6 s) across all subjects (Fig. 7E). For both, correlations between HFPF and age were highly significant. Notably, the age trend was stronger for the narrow-mode FHWM HRFs (slope = 0.075%/year vs. 0.038%/year), but the correlation was stronger for the wide-mode FWHM HRFs (R = 0.53, p = 0.000022 vs. R = 0.43, p = 0.001). Moreover, scatter plots of HFPF versus FWHM suggest that large HFPF is associated with narrow FWHM (Fig. 7F). Associated tuning curves confirm a dominant peak near 2.3-s FWHM, with a lesser peak or shoulder near 5-s FWHM (Fig. 7G). This qualitative pattern shows little age dependence, but there is a significant decrease with age in HFPF near the 5-s shoulder (Fig. 7H).