Poster #4 - The Roles of Inhibitory Control and Working Memory on Context Processing in 3- to 4-year-olds

• In Event: Poster Session 01

Abstract

A shift from reactive (ad-hoc responding) to proactive control (actively maintain information to bias future responses) occurs at around 5-6 years (Gonthier et al., 2019) in children’s use of contextual information to solve problems. Inhibitory control (inhibiting prepotent responses) and working memory (holding information in mind) are associated with developments in context processing (Troller-Renfree et al., 2020).
The AX-Continuous Performance task (AX-CPT) is used to assess context processing. A cue (A or B) is presented and then a probe (X or Y), forming cue-probe pairs (AX/AY/BX/BY). AX pairs are labeled targets while all others are nontargets. Hence, to respond correctly after X-probes, participants must consider the cue preceding it. Reactive and proactive control are measured by comparing stimulus-pair performance (Braver, 2012)—reactive individuals quickly dismiss AY pairs when presented with Y-probes (without interference from A-cues) but err on BX pairs. In contrast, proactive individuals plan responses at the outset and thus quickly dismiss BX pairs but err on AY pairs.
In developmental research, adaptations with the AX-CPT range from using adult versions with letters to using pictures (Cues: “SpongeBob”/“Blue”; Probes: slinky/watermelon). However, cue-probe links have been arbitrary, unnecessarily taxing children’s working memory. Lack of obvious cue-probe connections means that children who engage in proactive control must hold cues in mind over the delay period and remember arbitrarily linked cue-probes, placing additional demands on working memory that make its contribution to context processing difficult to isolate.
We examined inhibitory control, working memory, and context processing in 48 3-4-year-olds (M=49.8mos., SD=5.8 mos., 16 girls) who completed a Backward Word Span (working memory), a Go/No-Go task (inhibitory control) and an AX-CPT, modified as a “go fish” game. Specifically, cues consisted of fishing rods/baseball bats/mops and probes included fish/seahorses/crabs. Children were instructed to “Go Fish” [press target button] if they saw a fishing rod and then a fish (see Fig.1), otherwise they pressed the nontarget.
Tbl.1 presents descriptive statistics and correlations. Age correlated positively with all tasks. Several variables were calculated to assess AX-CPT performance. For simplicity, Tbl.1 presents the regression analysis using X-Probe d-prime as the outcome [d’=z(AX-Hits)−z(BX-False Alarms)]. Higher values indicate better proactive control. As predicted, after controlling for age, gender and AX-CPT delay, inhibitory control positively predicted performance, but contrary to expectations, better working memory predicted worse performance in these very young children.
According to Gonthier and Blaye (2022), the shift from reactive to proactive may not reflect a fundamental change in context processing. Instead, children may be proactive from a young age but require mental effort to do so beyond their capacity. Our results are consistent with this idea and with Miller’s (1994) notion of strategy utilization deficiency. Miller proposed that when children initially use a strategy, it may be too resource-demanding, and consequently, they fail to benefit from it (Clerc et al., 2014). We argue that as preschoolers’ working memory improve, they may attempt to be proactive, but because of the mental effort required, it may lead them to worse performance than if they only attended to probes.

Authors

• Lilian Menzner

• Sophie Jacques, Dalhousie University
  Presenting Author