A toolbox approach to improving the measurement of attention control

Abstract

Cognitive tasks that produce reliable and robust effects at the group level often fail to yield reliable and valid individual differences. An ongoing debate among attention researchers is whether conflict resolution mechanisms are task-specific or domain-general, and the lack of correlation between most attention measures seems to favor the view that attention control is not a unitary concept. We have argued that the use of difference scores, particularly in reaction time, is the primary cause of null and conflicting results at the individual differences level, and that methodological issues with existing tasks preclude making strong theoretical conclusions. The present article is an empirical test of this view in which we used a toolbox approach to develop and validate new tasks hypothesized to reflect attention processes. Here, we administered existing, modified, and new attention tasks to over 400 subjects (final N = 396). Compared to the traditional Stroop and flanker tasks, performance on the accuracy-based measures was more reliable, had stronger intercorrelations, formed a more coherent latent factor, and had stronger associations to measures of working memory capacity and fluid intelligence. Further, attention control fully accounted for the relationship between working memory capacity and fluid intelligence. These results show that accuracy-based tasks can be better suited to individual differences investigations than traditional reaction time tasks, particularly when the goal is to maximize prediction. We conclude that attention control is a unitary concept.

Strategy and processing speed eclipse individual differences in control ability in conflict tasks

“…Friedman & Miyake, 2004) often administer multiple conflict tasks, use latent variable approaches to account for measurement error, and small but non-zero correlations can be theoretically meaningful. Research in this area is likely to continue, seeking improvements to task design and measurement (Draheim, Tsukahara, Martin, Mashburn, & Engle, 2019;Rey-Mermet, Gade, Souza, von Bastian, & Oberauer, 2019;. In contrast, to some researchers inhibition tasks are seen as one of many tools that can be used to understanding individual differences in outcomes such as cognitive development (Carver, Livesey, & Charles, 2001;Dahlin, 2011), neuropsychological conditions (Hutton & Ettinger, 2006), or impulsivity (Skippen et al, 2019).…”

Fluid intelligence and the locus coeruleus-norepinephrine system

“…This calculation results in two separate k scores, one for set size 5 and one for set size 7, and the final dependent variable was the average k for these two set sizes. Sustained Attention-to-Cue Task -SACT (Draheim et al, 2020). In this task, subjects needed to sustain their attention on a visual circle cue presented at random locations on the screen and ultimately identify a target letter presented briefly at the center of the cue, see Figure 5.…”

A chronometric model of the relationship between frontal midline theta functional connectivity and human intelligence

“…As there is currently no consensus regarding the best measures of cognitive control (Draheim, Tsukahara, et al, 2019;Hedge et al, 2018;Paap & Sawi, 2016;Rey-Mermet et al, 2018;Rouder & Haaf, 2019;Schubert & Rey-Mermet, 2019), it would be important to demonstrate that the association between functional connectivity and fluid intelligence found in the present study can be generalized to other measures of cognitive control. One of the most established measures of cognitive control is the antisaccade task, in which participants have to inhibit a prepotent saccade response towards a lateralized cue and make a voluntary saccade to the opposite side to identify a briefly presented target stimulus (Draheim, Tsukahara, et al, 2019;Kane, Bleckley, Conway, & Engle, 2001;Rey-Mermet et al, 2018). Because cue-evoked saccades evoke strong electrophysiological activity (i.e., ocular artifacts) that cannot be easily distinguished from genuine neural activity when locked to cue onset, however, the antisaccade task is ill-suited for electrophysiological studies.…”

“…Taken together, these limitations call into question whether cognitive control can be reliably and validly measured using accuracy rates and mean reaction times in experimental tasks. Various solutions for improving the measurement of cognitive control have been suggested, including hierarchical modeling (Rouder & Haaf, 2019), the use of mathematical models , the introduction of individually calibrated response deadlines , and the development of new experimental tasks (Draheim, Tsukahara, Martin, Mashburn, & Engle, 2019). Undoubtedly, these promising approaches will allow a better evaluation of cognitive control as a psychometric construct and refine our understanding of the role of cognitive control processes in intelligence.…”