Back

FREQ-NESS reveals age-related differences in frequency-resolved brain networks during auditory recognition and resting state

Malvaso, C.; Fernandez-Rubio, G.; Rosso, M.; Serra, E.; Rudi, V.; Vuust, P.; Kringelbach, M. L.; Testa, C.; Bonetti, L.

2025-07-04 neuroscience
10.1101/2025.06.30.662094 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Understanding how brain networks operate across different frequencies during cognitive tasks, and how these dynamics change with age, remains a central challenge in cognitive neuroscience. While previous studies have focused on resting-state activity and passive listening, less is known about frequency-specific brain dynamics during event-related tasks that require active memory engagement. In this study, we extend the recently developed FREQ-NESS analytical pipeline by adapting it to event-related task and resting state source-reconstructed magnetoencephalography (MEG) data from 70 healthy participants. This method quantified the variance explained by frequency-specific brain networks, their spatial organization, and associated time-resolved power estimates. We found significant effects of age, condition, and their interaction in the variance explained by leading components at 1.07 Hz, 2.86 Hz, and 10.00 Hz. Younger adults exhibited stronger peaks at 1.07 and 2.86 Hz during the task and a more pronounced 10.00 Hz peak at rest, whereas older adults showed the opposite pattern. Time-frequency analysis revealed age- and condition-dependent desynchronization in the alpha and beta bands (7.10-22.90 Hz). These findings demonstrate the effectiveness of the adapted FREQ-NESS pipeline for event-related tasks and highlight the importance of frequency-resolved network analysis for characterizing age-related changes in active auditory memory processing.

Published in Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · training set

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.