Mechanisms underlying resilience in ageing

Stern, Yaakov; Chetelat, Gael; Habeck, Christian G.; Arenaza‐Urquijo, Eider M.; Vemuri, Prashanthi; Estanga, Ainara; Bartrés‐Faz, David; Cantilon, Marc; Clouston, Sean A. P.; Elman, Jeremy A.; Gold, Brian T.; Jones, Richard; Kempermann, Gerd; Lim, Yen Ying; van Loenhoud, Anita; Martínez-Lage, Pablo; Morbelli, Silvia; Okonkwo, Ozioma; Ossenkoppele, Rik; Pettigrew, Corinne; Rosen, Allyson C.; Scarmeas, Nikolaos; Soldan, Anja; Udeh‐Momoh, Chinedu; Valenzuela, Michael; Vuoksimaa, Eero

The recent Opinion article by Cabeza and colleagues (Maintenance, reserve and compensation: the cognitive neuroscience of healthy ageing. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 19, 701–710 (2018))1 provides definitions for reserve and maintenance along with a detailed description of compensatory mechanisms from a cognitive ageing perspective. The article represents a much-needed effort to refine the definitions for various forms of compensation. Nevertheless, the definitions presented by Cabeza et al. for reserve, maintenance and compensation diverge from the ‘whitepaper’ consensus definitions developed by a workgroup of 31 researchers2 in ways that we believe are not ideal in terms of their ability to capture the full extent of the mechanisms underlying individual differences in resilience.


Also Published In

Nature Reviews Neuroscience

More About This Work

Academic Units
Published Here
July 20, 2021