Electrophysiological evidence for different effects of working memory load on interference control in adolescents than adults

Abstract

The present study investigated how the development of interference control is influenced by the development of working memory (WM) capacity during adolescence. In a dual-task, 17 adolescents (12-16 years) and 19 adults (18-48 years) performed a gender word-face Stroop task, while WM-capacity was manipulated by a concurrently performed N-back task. Behavior (reaction times, % errors and % misses) and event-related potentials associated with the detection (N450) of the Stroop conflict and response selection (sustained positivity; SP) were measured without or with a concurrent WM load. Adolescents had lower accuracy on N-back and Stroop trials than adults. N450 results showed Stroop conflict above temporal-occipital cortex which was suggested to be caused by processing of distracter faces. This N450 conflict response was smaller in adults and only present when holding a simultaneous WM-load, whereas adolescents' N450 conflict responses were already present without a concurrent WM-load and did not further increase with load. These N450 results indicate poorer distracter suppression in adolescence which is suggested to be due to insufficient attentional resources for top-down control. Irrespective of WM-load, adolescents also had larger parietal SP conflict responses than adults, suggesting inefficient response selection in case of activation of two conflicting responses. The main conclusion is that adolescents have worse distracter suppression than adults, caused by lower availability of resources for top-down control.

Low-Arousal Speech Noise Improves Performance in N-Back Task: An ERP Study

“…The P3 amplitude decreased with increasing memory load, reflecting reallocation of cognitive resource from the matching phase to memory maintenance phase [27], [39]. In addition, we also found that the increase in working memory load was associated with a decrease of the N1 amplitude, which was in agreement with the N1 tendency in previous ERP studies [40]–[41]. In addition, similar results were also observed in fMRI studies [42]–[43].…”

Does dual tasking ability change with age across childhood and adolescence? A systematic scoping review

“…Most studies did not have enough sample size and only two studies stated the psychometric properties of the measures used (Hagmann‐von Arx et al, 2016; Palluel et al, 2010). Six articles had better comparability among participants by controlling for the selection bias (Getchell and Whitall, 2003; Hagmann‐von Arx et al, 2016; Otte and van Mier, 2006; Reilly et al, 2008; Schaefer et al, 2015; Spronk and Jonkman, 2012). As per criteria proposed in Table 1, very few studies addressed most of the methodological issues (Anderson et al, 2011; Hinton and Vallis, 2015; Reilly et al, 2008; Schaefer et al, 2008).…”

“…Almost all studies used appropriate tasks except two -holding a glass of water and carrying a tray while walking or reaching -that are classified as complex single rather than dual tasks in the literature (McIsaac et al, 2015). Single tasks were equated by only eleven studies (Anderson et al, 2011;Hinton and Vallis, 2015;Irwin-Chase and Burns, 2000;Krampe et al, 2011;Rattat, 2010;Reilly et al, 2008;Schaefer et al, 2008;Sebastian and Hernandez-Gil, 2013;Spronk and Jonkman, 2012;Sun et al, 2013), two of which did not adjust or equate both single tasks (Krampe et al, 2011;Sebastian and Hernandez-Gil, 2013). Only eleven studies analyzed the DT effect using DTC (five: absolute DTC, six: proportional DTC) (Abbruzzese et al, 2014;Anderson et al, 2011;Boonyong et al, 2012;Gautier and Droit-Volet, 2002;Krampe et al, 2011;Miller et al, 1991;Otte and van Mier, 2006;Palluel et al, 2010;Reilly et al, 2008;Schaefer et al, 2008;Sebastian and Hernandez-Gil, 2013) and rest of them only used statistical methods to estimate the age effect (ANOVA).…”

A Cognitive Framework for Understanding and Improving Interference Resolution in the Brain

“…The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends limiting media exposure in children to 2 h per day or less based on findings that elevated media use is associated with poor physical, cognitive, and social development and academic underperformance in children (Johnson et al, 2007; Junco, 2011; Junco and Cotten, 2011, 2012; Ozmert et al, 2002). From a neurodevelopmental standpoint, the cortex does not attain full capacity to manage interference until late adolescence/young adulthood (Giedd, 2012; Hagen and Hale, 1974; Harnishfeger and Bjorklund, 1994; Leon-Carrion et al, 2004; Spronk and Jonkman, 2012), which makes neural systems all the more prone to the negative impacts of heightened exposure to interference. Indeed, a recent study showed that teenagers intentionally engage with sources of interference, such as texting and Facebook, even in an observed study environment, which ultimately was associated with poor outcomes on their academic learning (Rosen et al, 2013).…”