2 indicates a slightly lower proportion of lower performers showing a significantly different effect of higher right DLPFC volume on memory than their high-performing contemporaries). Furthermore,

this analysis demonstrates that the reported dissociable involvement of right DLPFC is not merely an artefact of a single arbitrary split, but is present over a large number of possible breakpoints. It could be argued that our findings are not directly in line with fMRI and lesion studies which indicate a role for the left IFG in verbal memory processes. We found that only left DLPFC and not left IFG volume correlated with our whole-group and high/low verbal memory scores. However, this finding does not suggest that IFG is not involved in these abilities. Selleck Lumacaftor Rather, correlations mTOR inhibitor between ICV-controlled ROI volumes and cognition broadly represent the degree of change from maximal brain size that is functionally relevant. Examination of the brain variables indicate that the DLPFC volumes showed much wider variance amongst this aged group, consistent with observations that DLPFC structure and function is particularly susceptible to age-related decline (Burzynska et al., 2012, Driscoll et al., 2009, Fjell et al., 2009, Grieve et al., 2005, MacPherson et al.,

2002 and Raz et al., 2010). Thus, although fMRI studies suggest that the IFG is intimately involved in verbal abilities including memory, it is possible that age-related decline in the IFG is less marked than for other frontal regions, and its smaller degree of change is not a primary determinant of individual differences in verbal memory performance in older age. In spite of suggestions that immediate and delayed memory abilities rely on partially-dissociable neural underpinnings (e.g., Golden et al., 2000 and Wolk et al., 2011), our data provided little psychometric nor neurostructural Telomerase evidence to keep these constructs

separate. This is in line with the identification of specification errors in the initial factor analysis of the WMS-III (which had previously suggested the separation of immediate and delayed memory) and findings in clinical populations (see Bell, Hermann, & Seidenberg, 2004 for a discussion). Intra-test correlations were higher than those between immediate or delayed measures (Supplementary Table I) and there appeared to be little difference in their relation to the brain variables in question. However, we do note that differences between high and low performers in average memory network integrity appear to be predominantly driven by hippocampal differences for Immediate, but splenium differences for Delayed recall (Supplementary Table III). This could intimate subtle neurobiological distinctions between the two memory constructs, but appropriately powered whole-brain analyses would be required to formally address this question more completely.