New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Brain Scans Show Promise for Early Detection of Cognitive Problems

Activity visible in scans correlates with measures of mental ability two years later


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Working memory—our ability to store pieces of information temporarily—is crucial both for everyday activities like dialing a phone number as well as for more taxing tasks like arithmetic and accurate note-taking. The strength of working memory is often measured with cognitive tests, such as repeating lists of numbers in reverse order or recalling sequences of dots on a screen. For children, performance on working memory assessments is considered a strong predictor for future academic performance.
 
Yet cognitive tests can fail to identify children whose brain development is lagging in subtle ways that may lead to future deficits in working memory and, thus, in learning. Doctors give the tests periodically and plot the results along a development curve, much like a child’s height and weight. By the time these tests reveal that a child’s working memory is below average, however, it may be too late to do much about it.
 
But in a new study, published January 29 in The Journal of Neuroscience, scientists demonstrated that they could predict the future working memory of children and adolescents by examining brain scans from two different types of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), instead of looking only at cognitive tests. Henrik Ullman, a PhD student at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm and the lead author on the paper, says that this was the first study attempting to use MRI scans to predict future working memory capacity. “We were pretty surprised when we found what we actually found,” Ullman says.
 
In the project the researchers ran standard cognitive tests on and scanned 62 subjects ranging in age from six to 20 years old. The MRI scans measured the density of various brain structures and also measured brain activity during one of the working memory tests. Two years later the subjects were given the cognitive tests again—but not scanned—to see how their working memory capacity had changed over time.
 
Researchers then looked for correlations between the results of the first round of tests and scans and the results of the cognitive tests two years later. Although the first-round cognitive test results were good predictors of future working memory, the researchers also found that including the MRI results improved their ability to predict future working memory better than the cognitive test results alone did.
 
By looking at the brain activity results, researchers were also able to figure out which specific regions of the brain were associated with current and future working memory. While the subjects were taking the cognitive tests, researchers saw high activity in the frontoparietal cortex, which is known to be important to working memory as well as attention and perception. But that activity did not strongly predict future working memory results; rather, the results two years on were best predicted by activity in the thalamus and basal ganglia. Ullman says that although these regions are “very central parts of the nervous system,” they’re not normally thought of as being directly involved in working memory. The thalamus is best known for processing sensory information, such as sound and touch; the basal ganglia are involved in a variety of mental processes, including movement control. Some studies have reported activation in these areas during working memory tasks, Ullman says, but they are not areas most commonly reported to participate.
 
The results of the study don’t explain why those particular regions of the brain might affect future working memory capacity. But Ullman says that the main importance of the study is proof in principle that brain imaging can in fact predict future cognitive function. He thinks that similar brain scans may one day help to diagnose learning and cognition problems earlier in life. If you know which children are more likely to develop these problems, Ullman says, “then you can mobilize support for them earlier.”
 
Nico Dosenbach, a researcher and instructor of pediatric neurology at Washington University in Saint Louis who was not involved in the study, agrees that the research has future applications. He says, however, it is far too early say when that might happen. Still, if scans can predict future problems before they are picked up by cognitive tests, the technology could prove useful for early detection of such disorders as Alzheimer’s disease. To make a real difference in combatting Alzheimer’s-related cognitive decline, Dosenbach says, doctors must “intervene as early as possible.”
 

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe