Normal aging is accompanied by cognitive decline and structural changes in the brain, most notably within the hippocampus and amygdala. However, distinguishing these age-related alterations from the earliest signs of neurodegenerative disorders remains challenging.
Objective
This study aims to investigate and compare the alteration patterns of hippocampus and amygdala during normal aging and in cases of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer's disease (AD), which will provide insights into their distinct structural profiles.
Methods
A total of 2195 participants aged 20–90 from three public cohorts (1364 cognitively normal controls, 623 MCI, and 208 AD) were grouped by decade to examine age- and disease-related differences in surface-based morphometry of hippocampus and amygdala. Radial distance, tensor-based morphometry, and multivariate tensor-based morphometry were calculated and combined to generate the Multivariate Morphometry Statistics, which capture both radial and tangential deformations at each vertex. Statistical and deformation analyses were further performed to identify the alteration patterns across 15000 surface vertices between age groups.
Results
In healthy adults, significant intergroup differences were observed in the hippocampal CA1 and subiculum, as well as in the lateral, basolateral, and accessory basal nuclei of the amygdala. In MCI and AD, additional significant differences were detected in the hippocampal CA2–3 subfield and the central, medial, and cortical nuclei of the amygdala.
Conclusions
We provide a surface-based morphometry map of the hippocampus and amygdala across age groups in normal and pathological aging, revealing distinct morphological patterns that enhance understanding of aging and neurodegeneration.
RodrigueKMKennedyKM. The cognitive consequences of structural changes to the aging brain. In: SchaieKWWillisSL (eds) Handbook of the psychology of aging. Burlington, MA: Academic Press, 2011, pp.73–91.
2.
MurmanDL. The impact of age on cognition. Semin Hear2015; 36: 111–121.
3.
ListerJPBarnesCA. Neurobiological changes in the hippocampus during normative aging. Arch Neurol2009; 66: 829–833.
4.
FjellAMSneveMHStorsveAB, et al.Brain events underlying episodic memory changes in aging: a longitudinal investigation of structural and functional connectivity. Cereb Cortex2016; 26: 1272–1286.
5.
BettioLEBRajendranLGil-MohapelJ. The effects of aging in the hippocampus and cognitive decline. Neurosci Biobehav Rev2017; 79: 66–86.
6.
SmithCDMalceinMMeurerK, et al.MRI Temporal lobe volume measures and neuropsychologic function in Alzheimer’s disease. J Neuroimaging1999; 9: 2–9.
7.
CabezaRNybergLParkDC. Cognitive Neuroscience of Aging: Linking Cognitive and Cerebral Aging. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016.
8.
NobisLManoharSGSmithSM, et al.Hippocampal volume across age: nomograms derived from over 19,700 people in UK Biobank. Neuroimage Clin2019; 23: 101904.
9.
FjellAMMcEvoyLHollandD, et al.What is normal in normal aging? Effects of aging, amyloid and Alzheimer’s disease on the cerebral cortex and the hippocampus. Prog Neurobiol2014; 117: 20–40.
10.
CoupéPManjónJVLanuzaE, et al.Lifespan changes of the human brain in Alzheimer’s disease. Sci Rep2019; 9: 3998.
11.
ScheltensPStrooperBDKivipeltoM, et al.Alzheimer’s disease. Lancet2021; 397: 1577–1590.
12.
WolfDFischerFUde FloresR, et al.Differential associations of age with volume and microstructure of hippocampal subfields in healthy older adults. Hum Brain Mapp2015; 36: 3819–3831.
13.
KesnerRPLeeIGilbertP. A behavioral assessment of hippocampal function based on a subregional analysis. Rev Neurosci2004; 15: 333–352.
14.
BussyAPlitmanEPatelR, et al.Hippocampal subfield volumes across the healthy lifespan and the effects of MR sequence on estimates. Neuroimage2021; 233: 117931.
15.
GaoNLiuZDengY, et al.MR-based spatiotemporal anisotropic atrophy evaluation of hippocampus in Alzheimer’s disease progression by multiscale skeletal representation. Hum Brain Mapp2023; 44: 5180–5197.
16.
MoriEIkedaMHironoN, et al.Amygdalar volume and emotional memory in Alzheimer’s disease. Am J Psychiatry1999; 156: 216–222.
17.
LupienSJEvansALordC, et al.Hippocampal volume is as variable in young as in older adults: implications for the notion of hippocampal atrophy in humans. Neuroimage2007; 34: 479–485.
18.
BirdCMBurgessN. The hippocampus and memory: insights from spatial processing. Nat Rev Neurosci2008; 9: 182–194.
19.
MalykhinNPietrasikWAghamohammadi-SereshkiA, et al.Emotional recognition across the adult lifespan: effects of age, sex, cognitive empathy, alexithymia traits, and amygdala subnuclei volumes. J Neurosci Res2023; 101: 367–383.
20.
WisseLEMBiesselsGJHeringaSM, et al.Hippocampal subfield volumes at 7T in early Alzheimer’s disease and normal aging. Neurobiol Aging2014; 35: 2039–2045.
21.
BrierleyBShawPDavidAS. The human amygdala: a systematic review and meta-analysis of volumetric magnetic resonance imaging. Brain Res Rev2002; 39: 84–105.
22.
WhalenPJPhelpsEA. The Human Amygdala. New York: Guilford Press, 2009.
23.
AmaralRSCParkMTMDevenyiGA, et al.Manual segmentation of the fornix, fimbria, and alveus on high-resolution 3T MRI: application via fully-automated mapping of the human memory circuit white and grey matter in healthy and pathological aging. Neuroimage2018; 170: 132–150.
24.
JackCRPetersenRCXuY, et al.Rate of medial temporal lobe atrophy in typical aging and Alzheimer’s disease. Neurology1998; 51: 993–999.
25.
SmallSASchobelSABuxtonRB, et al.A pathophysiological framework of hippocampal dysfunction in ageing and disease. Nat Rev Neurosci2011; 12: 585–601.
26.
YassaMAStarkCEL. Pattern separation in the hippocampus. Trends Neurosci2011; 34: 515–525.
27.
de FloresRLa JoieRLandeauB, et al.Effects of age and Alzheimer’s disease on hippocampal subfields. Hum Brain Mapp2015; 36: 463–474.
28.
YushkevichPAAmaralRSCAugustinackJC, et al.Quantitative comparison of 21 protocols for labeling hippocampal subfields and parahippocampal subregions in in vivo MRI: towards a harmonized segmentation protocol. Neuroimage2015; 111: 526–541.
29.
WisseLEMDaughertyAMOlsenRK, et al.A harmonized segmentation protocol for hippocampal and parahippocampal subregions: why do we need one and what are the key goals?Hippocampus2017; 27: 3–11.
30.
YaoZFuYWuJ, et al.Morphological changes in subregions of hippocampus and amygdala in major depressive disorder patients. Brain Imaging Behav2020; 14: 653–667.
31.
FuYZhangJLiY, et al.A novel pipeline leveraging surface-based features of small subcortical structures to classify individuals with autism spectrum disorder. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry2021; 104: 109989.
32.
DongQZhangWStonningtonCM, et al.Applying surface-based morphometry to study ventricular abnormalities of cognitively unimpaired subjects prior to clinically significant memory decline. Neuroimage Clin2020; 27: 102338.
33.
DongQZhangWWuJ, et al.Applying surface-based hippocampal morphometry to study APOE-E4 allele dose effects in cognitively unimpaired subjects. Neuroimage Clin2019; 22: 101744.
34.
ZhengWLiuHLiZ, et al.Classification of Alzheimer’s disease based on hippocampal multivariate morphometry statistics. CNS Neurosci Ther2023; 29: 2457–2468.
35.
ShaftoMATylerLKDixonM, et al.The Cambridge centre for ageing and neuroscience (cam-CAN) study protocol: a cross-sectional, lifespan, multidisciplinary examination of healthy cognitive ageing. BMC Neurol2014; 14: 204.
36.
TaylorJRWilliamsNCusackR, et al.The Cambridge Centre for Ageing and Neuroscience (Cam-CAN) data repository: structural and functional MRI, MEG, and cognitive data from a cross-sectional adult lifespan sample. Neuroimage2017; 144: 262–269.
JackCRBarnesJBernsteinMA, et al.Magnetic resonance imaging in Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative 2. Alzheimers Dement2015; 11: 740–756.
39.
PatenaudeBSmithSMKennedyDN, et al.A Bayesian model of shape and appearance for subcortical brain segmentation. Neuroimage2011; 56: 907–922.
40.
CollinsDLNeelinPPetersTM, et al.Automatic 3D intersubject registration of MR volumetric data in standardized Talairach space. J Comput Assist Tomogr1994; 18: 192–205.
41.
HanXXuCPrinceJL. A moving grid framework for geometric deformable models. Int J Comput Vis2009; 84: 63–79.
42.
LorensenWEClineHE. Marching cubes: a high resolution 3D surface construction algorithm. In: Seminal graphics: pioneering efforts that shaped the field, volume 1. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 1998, pp.347–353.
43.
HoppeH. Progressive meshes. In: Seminal graphics papers: pushing the boundaries, volume 2. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2023, pp.111–120.
44.
WangYZhangJGutmanB, et al.Multivariate tensor-based morphometry on surfaces: application to mapping ventricular abnormalities in HIV/AIDS. Neuroimage2010; 49: 2141–2157.
45.
ShiJThompsonPMGutmanB, et al.Surface fluid registration of conformal representation: application to detect disease burden and genetic influence on hippocampus. Neuroimage2013; 78: 111–134.
46.
BallmaierMNarrKLTogaAW, et al.Hippocampal morphology and distinguishing late-onset from early-onset elderly depression. Am J Psychiatry2008; 165: 229–237.
47.
CavedoEBoccardiMGanzolaR, et al.Local amygdala structural differences with 3T MRI in patients with Alzheimer disease. Neurology2011; 76: 727–733.
48.
PizerSMFritschDSYushkevichPA, et al.Segmentation, registration, and measurement of shape variation via image object shape. IEEE Trans Med Imaging1999; 18: 851–865.
49.
ThompsonPMHayashiKMde ZubicarayGI, et al.Mapping hippocampal and ventricular change in Alzheimer disease. Neuroimage2004; 22: 1754–1766.
50.
WangYChanTFTogaAW, et al.Multivariate tensor-based brain anatomical surface morphometry via holomorphic one-forms. In: Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention – MICCAI 2009. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 2009, pp.337–344.
51.
ShiJStonningtonCMThompsonPM, et al.Studying ventricular abnormalities in mild cognitive impairment with hyperbolic Ricci flow and tensor-based morphometry. Neuroimage2015; 104: 1–20.
52.
HotellingH. The generalization of student’s ratio. In: Breakthroughs in statistics. New York, NY: Springer New York, 1992, pp.54–65.
53.
CaoJWorsleyKJ. The detection of local shape changes via the geometry of Hotelling’s T^2 fields. Ann Stat1999; 27: 925–942.
54.
NicholsTEHolmesAP. Nonparametric permutation tests for functional neuroimaging: a primer with examples. Hum Brain Mapp2002; 15: 1–25.
55.
HolmesAPBlairRCWatsonJDG, et al.Nonparametric analysis of statistic images from functional mapping experiments. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab1996; 16: 7–22.
56.
RoyDSKitamuraTOkuyamaT, et al.Distinct neural circuits for the formation and retrieval of episodic memories. Cell2017; 170: 1000–1012.
57.
GenonSBernhardtBCJoieRL, et al.The many dimensions of human hippocampal organization and (dys)function. Trends Neurosci2021; 44: 977–989.
58.
HomayouniRCanadaKLSaifullahS, et al.Age-related differences in hippocampal subfield volumes across the human lifespan: a meta-analysis. Hippocampus2023; 33: 1292–1315.
59.
HariIAdeyemiOFGowlandP, et al.Memory impairment in amyloidβ-status Alzheimer’s disease is associated with a reduction in CA1 and dentate gyrus volume: in vivo MRI at 7T. Neuroimage2024; 292: 120607.
60.
MalykhinNPietrasikWHoangKN, et al.Contributions of hippocampal subfields and subregions to episodic memory performance in healthy cognitive aging. Neurobiol Aging2024; 133: 51–66.
61.
WisseLEMBiesselsGJGeerlingsMI. A critical appraisal of the hippocampal subfield segmentation package in FreeSurfer. Front Aging Neurosci2014; 6: 261.
62.
de FloresRLa JoieRChételatG. Structural imaging of hippocampal subfields in healthy aging and Alzheimer’s disease. Neuroscience2015; 309: 29–50.
63.
FrisoniGBGanzolaRCanuE, et al.Mapping local hippocampal changes in Alzheimer’s disease and normal ageing with MRI at 3 Tesla. Brain2008; 131: 3266–3276.
64.
DaughertyAMBenderARRazN, et al.Age differences in hippocampal subfield volumes from childhood to late adulthood. Hippocampus2016; 26: 220–228.
65.
MalykhinNVHuangYHrybouskiS, et al.Differential vulnerability of hippocampal subfields and anteroposterior hippocampal subregions in healthy cognitive aging. Neurobiol Aging2017; 59: 121–134.
66.
YuJ. Age-related decline in thickness and surface area in the cortical surface and hippocampus: lifespan trajectories and decade-by-decade analyses. Geroscience2024; 46: 6213–6227.
67.
VinkeEJde GrootMVenkatraghavanV, et al.Trajectories of imaging markers in brain aging: the Rotterdam Study. Neurobiol Aging2018; 71: 32–40.
68.
ChauveauLKuhnEPalixC, et al.Medial temporal lobe subregional atrophy in aging and Alzheimer’s disease: a longitudinal study. Front Aging Neurosci2021; 13: 750154.
69.
Aghamohammadi-SereshkiAHrybouskiSTravisS, et al.Amygdala subnuclei and healthy cognitive aging. Hum Brain Mapp2019; 40: 34–52.
70.
GhanemKSaltounKSuvrathanA, et al.Longitudinal microstructural changes in 18 amygdala nuclei resonate with cortical circuits and phenomics. Commun Biol2024; 7: 477.
71.
PaduloCSestieriCPunziM, et al.Atrophy of specific amygdala subfields in subjects converting to mild cognitive impairment. Alzheimers Dement2023; 9: e12436.
72.
KurthFCherbuinNLudersE. Age but no sex effects on subareas of the amygdala. Hum Brain Mapp2019; 40: 1697–1704.
73.
WegielJFloryMKuchnaI, et al.Multiregional age-associated reduction of brain neuronal reserve without association with neurofibrillary degeneration or β-amyloidosis. J Neuropathol Exp Neurol2017; 76: 439–457.
74.
WangYXuQLuoJ, et al.Effects of age and sex on subcortical volumes. Front Aging Neurosci2019; 11: 259.
75.
YoonBGuoTProvostK, et al.Abnormal tau in amyloid PET negative individuals. Neurobiol Aging2022; 109: 125–134.
76.
ZhangLJiangYZhuJ, et al.Quantitative assessment of hippocampal tau pathology in AD and PART. J Mol Neurosci2020; 70: 1808–1811.
77.
LaceGSavvaGMForsterG, et al.Hippocampal tau pathology is related to neuroanatomical connections: an ageing population-based study. Brain2009; 132: 1324–1334.
78.
HsuPJShouHBenzingerT, et al.Amyloid burden in cognitively normal elderly is associated with preferential hippocampal subfield volume loss. J Alzheimers Dis2015; 45: 27–33.
79.
LiuGLiuCQiuA, et al.Spatial correlation maps of the hippocampus with cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers and cognition in Alzheimer’s disease: a longitudinal study. Hum Brain Mapp2021; 42: 2931–2940.
80.
HuangYShanYQinW, et al.Apolipoprotein E ε4 accelerates the longitudinal cerebral atrophy in open access series of imaging studies-3 elders without dementia at enrollment. Front Aging Neurosci2023; 15: 1158579.
81.
BaekMSLeeNKimJW, et al.Association of hippocampal subfield volumes with amyloid-beta deposition in Alzheimer’s disease. J Clin Med2022; 11: 1526.
82.
BradyDRMufsonEJ. Amygdaloid pathology in Alzheimer’s disease: qualitative and quantitative analysis. Dementia1990; 1: 5–17.
83.
VogtLJKHymanBTVan HoesenGW, et al.Pathological alterations in the amygdala in Alzheimer’s disease. Neuroscience1990; 37: 377–385.
84.
UngerJWLaphamLWMcNeillTH, et al.The amygdala in Alzheimer’s disease: neuropathology and Alz 50 immunoreactivity. Neurobiol Aging1991; 12: 389–399.
85.
ShiraKCesarVPaulaM-S, et al.Morphological alterations to neurons of the amygdala and impaired fear conditioning in a transgenic mouse model of Alzheimer’s disease. J Pathol2009; 219: 41–51.
86.
MelaniaG-RSandraV-CVeronicaA-L, et al.Human amygdala involvement in Alzheimer’s disease revealed by stereological and dia-PASEF analysis. Brain Pathol2023; 33: e13180.
87.
NikolenkoVNOganesyanMVRizaevaNA, et al.Amygdala: neuroanatomical and morphophysiological features in terms of neurological and neurodegenerative diseases. Brain Sci2020; 10: 502.
88.
StoufferKMChenCKulasonS, et al.Early amygdala and ERC atrophy linked to 3D reconstruction of rostral neurofibrillary tau tangle pathology in Alzheimer’s disease. Neuroimage Clin2023; 38: 103374.
89.
SalmanYGérardTHuygheL, et al.Amygdala atrophies in specific subnuclei in preclinical Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Dement2024; 20: 7205–7219.
90.
FerryB. The Amygdala: A Discrete Multitasking Manager. London: IntechOpen, 2012.
91.
QuMGaoBJiangY, et al.Atrophy patterns in hippocampus and amygdala subregions of depressed patients with Parkinson’s disease. Brain Imaging Behav2024; 18: 475–484.
92.
RitterAHawleyNBanksSJ, et al.The association between Montreal Cognitive Assessment memory scores and hippocampal volume in a neurodegenerative disease sample. J Alzheimers Dis2017; 58: 695–699.
93.
MoradiEHallikainenIHänninenT, et al.Rey’s Auditory Verbal Learning Test scores can be predicted from whole brain MRI in Alzheimer’s disease. Neuroimage Clin2017; 13: 415–427.
94.
WangD-WDingS-LBianX-L, et al.Diagnostic value of amygdala volume on structural magnetic resonance imaging in Alzheimer’s disease. World J Clin Cases2021; 9: 4627–4636.
95.
XiaoYHuYHuangK, et al.Atrophy of hippocampal subfields relates to memory decline during the pathological progression of Alzheimer’s disease. Front Aging Neurosci2023; 15: 1287122.
96.
PunziMSestieriCPicerniE, et al.Atrophy of hippocampal subfields and amygdala nuclei in subjects with mild cognitive impairment progressing to Alzheimer’s disease. Heliyon2024; 10: e27429.
97.
FujitaSMoriSOndaK, et al.Characterization of brain volume changes in aging individuals with normal cognition using serial magnetic resonance imaging. JAMA Netw Open2023; 6: e2318153.
98.
JackCRAndrewsJSBeachTG, et al.Revised criteria for diagnosis and staging of Alzheimer’s disease: Alzheimer’s Association Workgroup. Alzheimers Dement2024; 20: 5143–5169.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
