The Development of Non-Spatial Working Memory Capacity During Childhood and Adolescence and the Role of Interference Control: An N-Back Task Study

Schleepen, Tamara M. J.; Jonkman, Lisa M.

doi:10.1080/87565640903325733

Cited by 52 publications

(51 citation statements)

References 61 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We thus observed a relatively protracted development of resistance to interference, which is consistent with new evidence on developmental trajectories in the n -back (Schleepen & Jonkman, 2010). Our model shows this protracted development due to an interdependency between the resolution of proactive interference and other executive functions: Gating, maintenance, and binding control processes, supported by reinforcement learning (in the case of gating) as well as Hebbian and error-driven learning, must first construct a relatively stable state before those representations can be incrementally refined to reduce proactive interference through additional Hebbian and error-driven learning.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 89%

From an Executive Network to Executive Control: A Computational Model of the n-back Task

Chatham

Herd²,

Brant³

et al. 2011

Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A paradigmatic test of executive control, the n-back task, is known to recruit a widely-distributed parietal, frontal and striatal “executive network,” and is thought to require an equally wide array of executive functions. The mapping of functions onto substrates in such a complex task presents a significant challenge to any theoretical framework for executive control. To address this challenge, we developed a biologically-constrained model of the n-back task that emergently develops the ability to appropriately gate, bind, and maintain information in working memory in the course of learning to perform the task. Furthermore, the model is sensitive to proactive interference in ways that match findings from neuroimaging, and shows a U-shaped performance curve after manipulation of prefrontal dopaminergic mechanisms similar to that observed in studies of genetic polymorphisms and pharmacological manipulations. Our model represents a formal computational link between anatomical, functional neuroimaging, genetic, behavioral, and theoretical levels of analysis in the study of executive control. In addition, the model specifies one way in which the prefrontal cortex, basal ganglia, parietal, and sensory cortices may learn to cooperate and give rise to executive control.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 89%

From an Executive Network to Executive Control: A Computational Model of the n-back Task

Chatham

Herd²,

Brant³

et al. 2011

Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Several behavioral studies have shown that adolescents have still immature WM performance, mainly in tasks requiring high levels of executive control [19], [20], [21]. This raises the question of whether this worse performance than adults is caused by still immature WM processing capacity during the encoding of items for maintenance in WM or whether other processes like memory comparison or response decision times also play a role.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As mentioned above, one such important executive process is filtering efficiency, that is, the efficiency with which the individual is capable of excluding irrelevant information to get access to, or interfere with the current contents of WM. Schleepen and Jonkman [21] showed particularly late development of non-spatial WM-capacity into adolescence in task conditions requiring simultaneous maintenance, updating and suppression of irrelevant information.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Electrophysiological Evidence for Immature Processing Capacity and Filtering in Visuospatial Working Memory in Adolescents

Spronk

Vogel²,

Jonkman³

2012

PLoS ONE

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study investigated the development of visuospatial working memory (VSWM) capacity and the efficiency of filtering in VSWM in adolescence. To this end, a group of IQ-matched adults and adolescents performed a VSWM change detection task with manipulations of WM-load and distraction, while performance and electrophysiological contralateral delay activity (CDA) were measured. The CDA is a lateralized ERP marker of the number of targets and distracters that are selectively encoded/maintained in WM from one hemifield of the memory display. Significantly lower VSWM-capacity (Cowan's K) was found in adolescents than adults, and adolescents' WM performance (in terms of accuracy and speed) also suffered more from the presence of distracters. Distracter-related CDA responses were partly indicative of higher distracter encoding/maintenance in WM in adolescents and were positively correlated with performance measures of distracter interference. This correlation suggests that the higher interference of distracters on WM performance in adolescents was caused by an inability to block distracters from processing and maintenance in WM. The lower visuospatial WM-capacity (K) in adolescents in the high load (3 items) condition was accompanied by a trend (p<.10) towards higher CDA amplitudes in adolescents than adults, whereas CDA amplitudes in the low load (1 item) condition were comparable between adolescents and adults. These findings point to immaturity of frontal-parietal WM-attention networks that support visuospatial WM processing in adolescence.

show abstract

“…The present study focuses on adolescence since both WM-capacity and inhibitory control have been consistently reported to follow a protracted qualitative development into this period, especially in situations that are highly cognitively demanding (Anderson et al, 2001;Davies and Rose, 1999;Demetriou et al, 2002;Gathercole, 1999;Klingberg et al, 2002;Kwon et al, 2002;Leon-Carrion et al, 2004;Luciana et al, 2005;Luna et al, 2004Luna et al, , 2010Schleepen and Jonkman, 2010;Segalowitz et al, 2010). For example in a review article, Gathercole (1999) showed that especially complex working memory (compared to phonological and visuospatial short-term memory) undergoes late development until 16 years of age.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…Luciana et al (2005), who used nonverbal WM tasks with varying degrees of executive demands, reported that WM-capacity in a spatial WM task in which sequences of visually presented information (block tapping) had to be recalled in backward order (requiring maintenance and manipulation) did not reach mature levels in adolescents until 13 or 15 years of age. Schleepen and Jonkman (2010) showed particularly late development of non-spatial WM-capacity into adolescence in task conditions that required simultaneous maintenance, updating and suppression of irrelevant information in a verbal N-back task. Luna et al (2004) also showed ongoing development of working memory throughout adolescence using an oculomotor delayed response task (requiring eye movements guided by a target location in memory), as well as late development in adolescence of inhibitory control in an anti-saccade task.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

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

Spronk¹,

Jonkman²

2012

International Journal of Psychophysiology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

The Development of Non-Spatial Working Memory Capacity During Childhood and Adolescence and the Role of Interference Control: An N-Back Task Study

Cited by 52 publications

References 61 publications

From an Executive Network to Executive Control: A Computational Model of the n-back Task

From an Executive Network to Executive Control: A Computational Model of the n-back Task

Electrophysiological Evidence for Immature Processing Capacity and Filtering in Visuospatial Working Memory in Adolescents

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About