Contribution of reactive and proactive control to children’s working memory performance: Insight from item recall durations in response sequence planning.

Abstract

The present study addressed whether developmental improvement in working memory span task performance relies upon a growing ability to proactively plan response sequences during childhood. 213 children completed a working memory span task in which they used a touchscreen to reproduce orally presented sequences of animal names. Children were assessed longitudinally at seven time points between 3 and 10 years of age, and 21 young adults completed the same task. Proactive response sequence planning was assessed by comparing recall durations for the first item (preparatory interval) and subsequent items. At preschool age, the preparatory interval was generally shorter than subsequent item recall durations, whereas it was systematically longer during elementary school and in adults. Although children mostly approached the task reactively at preschool, they proactively planned response sequences with increasing efficiency from age 7 on, like adults. These findings clarify the nature of the changes in executive control that support working memory performance with age.

Metacognitive Processes in Executive Control Development: The Case of Reactive and Proactive Control

“…Ten-year-olds engaged in proactive, advance preparation whenever this control mode was possible, as shown by faster RTs, more pronounced cue-locked posterior positivity, and greater cue-related pupil dilation in the “Proactive Possible” (and “Proactive Encouraged”) condition than the “Proactive Impossible” condition. In contrast, 5-year-olds displayed a bias towards reactive control even when proactive control was possible, hence extending to a paradigm involving set shifting previous evidence for a shift from reactive to proactive control observed during childhood in measures of inhibition and working memory (Chatham et al, 2009; Chevalier et al, 2014; Lucenet & Blaye, 2014; see also Vallesi & Shallice, 2007). Critically, despite being biased towards reactive control, 5-years-olds showed a proactive profile when the advantage of proactive control over reactive control was increased.…”

“…Such flexibility in control mode engagement is observed from age 8 on, but not in younger children, who appear to rely on reactive control even in situations where proactive control would seem to be more efficient (Blackwell & Munakata, 2013; Chatham, Frank, & Munakata, 2009; Chevalier et al, 2014; Vallesi & Shallice, 2007). For instance, Chatham et al (2009) used pupil dilation, a well-established index of cognitive effort (e.g., Beatty, 1982), to track early and late mental effort engagement associated with proactive and reactive control, respectively.…”

“…They observed that, when asked to respond to specific cue-target associations, 3-year-olds show greater late mental effort (as shown by greater pupil dilation) after target onset, showing no anticipation of the target, whereas 8-year-olds show greater early mental effort before target onset; suggesting a shift from reactive to proactive control during childhood. The shift to proactive control seems to occur around 6 years of age, although proactive control continues to develop through late adolescence (Andrews-Hanna et al, 2011; Chatham, Provan, & Munakata, in revision; Chevalier & al., 2014; Lucenet & Blaye, 2014). Understanding the reasons why young children do not engage the most mature and efficient forms of control is critical to uncover the mechanisms underpinning executive control development and to design effective interventions early in childhood.…”

“…To address whether proactive, advance preparation can be encouraged during childhood, the present study targeted two age groups: 5-year-old children, who start switching ably between tasks but still engage reactive control preferentially (Blackwell & Munakata, 2013; Chatham, Provan, & Munakata, in revision; Chevalier et al, 2014; Vallesi & Shallice, 2007), and 10-year-olds, who likely engage proactive control whenever this control mode is possible (Chatham et al, 2009). The cue-target interval was manipulated in three conditions of an age-appropriate, cued task-switching paradigm (Figure 1).…”

Executive Function Development

“…Specifically, they may contribute to the progressive shift from reactive to proactive control after 6 years of age (Chatham, Frank, & Munakata, 2009;Chevalier, James, Wiebe, Nelson, & Espy, 2014;Lucenet & Blaye, 2014;. Reactive control is engaged transiently, in the moment, to resolve the interference between several conflicting tasks or responses (e.g., figuring…”