During each of these phases, our brains show markedly different characteristics in brain architecture, according to the new findings.

As we age, the human brain rewires itself. The process happens in distinct phases, or “epochs,” according to new research, as the structure of our neural networks changes and our brains reconfigure how we think and process information.

For the first time, scientists say they’ve identified four distinct turning points between those phases in an average brain: at ages 9, 32, 66 and 83. During each epoch between those years, our brains show markedly different characteristics in brain architecture, they say.

The findings, published Tuesday in the journal Nature Communications, suggest that human cognition does not simply increase with age until a peak, then decline. In fact, the phase from ages 9 to 32 is the only time in life when our neural networks are becoming increasingly efficient, according to the research. 

During the adulthood phase, from 32 to 66, the average person’s brain architecture essentially stabilizes without major changes, at a time when researchers think people are generally plateauing in intelligence and personality.

all 33 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 93 points 11 months ago (1 child)

Then, from 66 to age of 83, the brain tends toward “modularity,” where the neural network is divided into highly connected subnetworks with less central integration. At age 83, connectivity declines further.

Gee...

Maybe we shouldn't keep letting geriatric people run our fucking country?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 35 points 11 months ago (5 children)

    I remember someone saying "middle age" is 35 to 65. Turns out that they were right.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago (4 children)

    I can assure you the body fails between 35 and 65...

    Like, this is just about the brain. Middle age does not last until 65 unless you're dividing a lifetime into three separate chunks and saying a 2 year old and a 33 year old are in the same group.

    Which is fucking ridiculous, but boomers didn't want to ever admit they were aging, so were left with entirely stupid concepts like "middle age" lasting until you retire.

    That's not based on anything scientific, just Boomer's feelings.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 child)

    I can assure you the body fails between 35 and 65...

    I can assure you that's normal middle age bullshit.

    Source: Am middle aged and no longer spring back from injuries like I used to despite being in fairly good shape, eating well, and getting regular physical activity.

    Take care of yourselves kids!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 40 points 11 months ago* (5 children)

    I think one big problem of researches like this is you can't really separate one's age from socioeconomic environment one has lived through, which will have a big effect on one's health, etc. Especially true if all the samples come from, say, developed Western countries.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    These numbers are not literal. It's not like you wake up at the age of 32 and the ink is finally dry. Some people become "adults" far earlier. Others are far more mentally resilient after their 70s, or more prone to dependency earlier on.

    Environment, socio-economics (which dictate diet, health and mental state +++more), etc., and genetics all play roles. The end of the epoch or onset of another is likely to be cross-faded like a musical track.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] -2 points 11 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    Never did I say impossible in anything I wrote, implied or otherwise. Learn to read.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 7 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

    Reading this wishing I did everything I could to learn and experience new things before the age of 32. I guess I’m in the plateau phase, but it was not until now that I could afford these priorities and not just focusing on work and survival. Oh well, c’est la vie. I’ll certainly keep trying.😁

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    None of this is written in stone. The study even noted the different numbers of subjects that seemed to correspond with each phase, and it wasn't universal.

    It seems to me that just being aware that there is a natural plateau stage, means that you could alter it, delay it, extend it, ignore it, defy it, etc. If you want to learn new stuff, learn it, don't let some study tell you that you can't.

    I took up the guitar during the pandemic quarantine at 60 years old, and now I've progressed to a decent intermediate level, and I'm still growing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 11 months ago

    So much this^^. The human brain is massively flexible, and always on the lookout for more.

    Studies are a snapshot of a certain group of ppl. While helpful and informative, one study can't and shouldn't define you. Maybe help better understand yourself, at most:)

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    This is very interesting. And just feels true.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    Fuck you brain I'm gonna keep learning and getting smarter forever RAAAAAH

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 11 months ago

    New maximum age to run for office just dropped: 66

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 11 months ago

    I dunno about you guys, but I feel like I’m on epoch number 12 and I just wanna go back to sleep.

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 11 months ago (4 children)

    strange how this intuitively feels more accurate than adulthood at 18. we really need to consider people to be “minors” (or something) until around 25, i stg.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    What if instead of treating people at an arbitrary age as 'adults' as if their age and maturity grants them freedom that absolves everyone else's concern for their wellbeing, we treat everyone like people who are deserving of basic necessities and help, no matter their age and circumstances?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago

    Looks like someone is hitting their best presidential age soon.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago

    New word to learn🧐

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago

    Finally, I can claim some people haven't hit their first epoch yet

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago*

    So as i now enter the 7th epoch... Skibidi?

  • source
  • 12 comments in c/news@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 35 points 11 months ago (7 children)

    "at ages 9, 32, 66 and 83"

    That seems incredibly specific and absolutely arbitrary considering the massive difference from individual to individual

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    Yeah, agreed. It reads as if a bunch of computer scientists did some data analysis without statisticians or biologists.

    Here's the original paper:

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-65974-8

    They've taken a number of measured attributes:

    All graph theory metrics were calculated using the Brain Connectivity Toolbox (BCT) in MATLAB 2020b38. Global measures included network density, modularity, global efficiency, characteristic path length, core/periphery structure, small-worldness, k-core, and s-core, while local measures utilized were degree, strength, local efficiency, clustering coefficient, betweenness centrality, and subgraph centrality.

    Smoothed to fit a curve to the data:

    In these models, cubic regression splines were used to smooth across age, and sex, atlas, and dataset were controlled for.

    Reduced the dimensions using Uniform Manifold Approximation and Projection. Basically, if you have this data "height in inches", "height in cm", "weight in kg" it would ideally keep "weight" roughly the same but have a single "height" but you couldn't rely on the units. They condense the input data down to four dimensions keeping age as the independent variable.

    To project topological data into a manifold space, we used the UMAP package in Python version 3.7.335. Before data was put into the UMAP, it was first standardized using Sklearn’s StandardScalar

    Then they created a polynomial fit for each dimension:

    Polynomials were fit using the polyfit() function from the numpy package, which uses least squares error95. Together, these polynomials create the 3D line of best fit through the manifold space. For our main analysis, we fit 5-degree polynomials

    Then they found the turning points and where they were are the ages. Here's a plot and you can see even after all this cleanup the ages are noisy and it's really surprising they've chosen ages as specific as they have:

    The authors plot for finding turning points

    I have no idea how they went back through to make up the summary for each "epoch" they identified. There's obviously a lot of information for them to use here but it also seems like there could have been more creative license than ideal.

    It really reads as an early idea that I don't think should be pushed to the general public until other scientists have scrutinised it more (otherwise you end up with a whole lot of coffee is dangerous, coffee is healthy leading to people not trusting science)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 11 months ago

    They say that fitting different degree Polynomials robustly identifies inflexion points seeing 10, 30 and 80. I think they only went for a higher degree because it was "visually underfit" at lower degrees, ie no scientific basis.

    This is already after the dimensionality reduction which has its own arbitrary choice that affects what inflexion points you can identify.

    This definitely smells like "we threw some data into a bunch of statistical analysis without thinking about it and wrote down anything that looked publishable"

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 19 points 11 months ago (2 children)
    1. Ignorant stupid.

    2. Insufferably stupid.

    3. Bigotedly Stupid.

    4. Nostalgia Stupid.

    5. Obliviously Stupid.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago

    If they said it then I missed it, but I wonder how much variation there is between individuals and how much that follows genetics and external factors like (un)healthy habits, environment, experiences, etc.

  • source