Research byte: Executive functions and self-regulation

Click on images to enlarge











- Posted using BlogPress from Kevin McGrew's iPad

Research Byte: Why we sometimes struggle with cognitive self-regulation

I think the following "in press" article is important. Why? Because I have been actively involved in reading research to better understand cognitive performance (working memory and executive attention in particular), the IQ Brain Clock (role of mental timing in human performance), and neuro-technology interventions (e.g., Interactive Metronome) that seem to improve cognitive efficiency. Across these different strands of research I have CONSTANTLY run across a number of common factors. In particular, I am constantly finding the dorsolateral pre-frontal cortex (PFC) as being critical to cognitive efficiency (working memory and cognitive processing speed), which in turn impacts intellectual functioning, especially Gf or fluid reasoning. The same brain area is implicated in mental timing and IM-interventions.

The article below continues to suggest a prominent role of the dlPFC, this time in self-regulation behavior. Of importance, IMHO, is the conclusion (near the end of the article) that this may be a domain-general mechanism. This is important, as it is consistent with my hypothesis why neuro-tech IM and other working memory interventions seem to improve performance across vastly different human performance domains. Clearly the dlPFC, and the functions it regulates (working memory, controlled executive attention, mental timing), is important and focal to understanding a number of related areas of research.


Heatherington & Wagner Cognitive neuroscience of self-regulation failure Review Article. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, In Press, Corrected Proof, Available online 26 January 2011

Abstract

Self-regulatory failure is a core feature of many social and mental health problems. Self-regulation can be undermined by failures to transcend overwhelming temptations, negative moods and resource depletion, and when minor lapses in self-control snowball into self-regulatory collapse. Cognitive neuroscience research suggests that successful self-regulation is dependent on top-down control from the prefrontal cortex over subcortical regions involved in reward and emotion. We highlight recent neuroimaging research on self-regulatory failure, the findings of which support a balance model of self-regulation whereby self-regulatory failure occurs whenever the balance is tipped in favor of subcortical areas, either due to particularly strong impulses or when prefrontal function itself is impaired. Such a model is consistent with recent findings in the cognitive neuroscience of addictive behavior, emotion regulation and decision-making.

Click on image to enlarge for better readability.


Article Outline

The advantages of self-control
Self-regulation failure
Negative moods
Lapse-activated consumption
Cue exposure
Self-regulatory resource depletion
Functional neuroimaging studies of self-regulation
Regulation of appetitive behaviors
Regulation of emotions
Regulation of attitudes and prejudice
Prefrontal–subcortical balance model of self-regulation
Why do people fail at self-regulation?
Concluding remarks
Acknowledgements
References


- iPost using BlogPress from my Kevin McGrew's iPad

mental timing IQ Brain Clock brain clock temporal processing metronome mental time-keeping brain timing educational psychology school psychology special education neuropsychology neuroscience neurology brain rhythm rhythm processing rhythm perception intelligence cognitive abilities working memory attention executive attention self-regulation prefrontal cortex.dosrolateral PFC

Generated by: Tag Generator

Cognitive construct of attention - a review

The most recent Annual Review of Psychology had a nice overview article (by Posner and Rothbart..click here to view) dealing with research on the cognitive construct of attention. I found Figure 2 and Table 1 (above) particularly informative. Below are some key quotes from the article. Given my prior reading and posts regarding the importance of executive attention, I was particularly interested in Posner and Rothbart's suggestion that executive attention may be a domain general learning mechanism that may be trainable. The italics and/or underlining below were added by this blogmaster.

• In recent years, attention has been one of the fastest growing of all fields within cognitive psychology and cognitive neuroscience.
• Certainly many, perhaps even most, imaging studies have been concerned with anatomical issues. As Figure 2 illustrates, several functions of attention have been shown to involve specific anatomical areas that carry out important functions.
• Imaging data have supported the presence of three networks related to different aspects of attention (Fan et al. 2005). These networks carry out the functions of alerting, orienting, and executive attention (Posner & Fan 2007). A summary of the anatomy and chemical modulators involved in the three networks is shown in Table 1. Alerting is defined as achieving and maintaining a state of high sensitivity to incoming stimuli; orienting is the selection of information from sensory input; and executive attention involves mechanisms for monitoring and resolving conflict among thoughts, feelings, and responses.
• ..we have argued that the executive attention network is involved in self-regulation of positive and negative affect as well as a wide variety of cognitive tasks underlying intelligence (Duncan et al. 2000). This idea suggests an important role for attention in moderating the activity of sensory, cognitive, and emotional systems.
• There is considerable evidence that the executive attention network is of great importance in the acquisition of school subjects such as literacy (McCandliss et al. 2003) and in a wide variety of other subjects that draw upon general intelligence (Duncan et al.2000).
• It has been widely believed by psychologists that training involves only specific domains, and that more general training of the mind, for example, by formal disciplines like mathematics or Latin, does not generalize beyond the specific domain trained (Thorndike 1903, Simon 1969). However, attention may be an exception to this idea. Attention involves specific brain mechanisms, as we have seen, but its function is to influence the operation of other brain networks (Posner & Rothbart 2007). Anatomically, the network involving resolution of conflict overlaps with brain areas related to general intelligence (Duncan et al. 2000). Training of attention either explicitly or implicitly is sometimes a part of the school curriculum (Posner&Rothbart 2007), but additional studies are needed to determine exactly how and when attention training can best be accomplished and its long-lasting importance.
• Executive attention represents a neurodevelopmental process in children and adolescents, the alteration which could affect the propensity for the development of a number of disorders.

Technorati Tags: psychology, educational psychology, neuropsychology, neuroscience, intelligence, IQ, cognition, executive attention, attention, domain general, learning, education, ADHD

powered by performancing firefox

Is ADHD related to a poor internal mental clock?

I just ran across a 2004 study that examined prospective (reproducing a 30 second time interval) and retrospective (how long did a task take?) time judgements in children with reading disorders and ADHD (RD and ADHD groups).

Although prior research with ADHD subjects has implicated deficient mental/interval time-keeping (at the milisecond level--see introduction/review of lit in actual article--see below) as a potentail causal mechanism for ADHD, the current study attempted to determine if ADHD subjects, consistent with Barkley's ADHD impaired behavioral inhibition conceptualization (which articulates four primary self-regulation subsystems--working memory and sense of time, internalization of speech, affect regulation, and "reconstitution" or the formation of novel, complex behavioral sequences), differed from RD subjects in more "everday" time perception/judgments.

With regard to the focus of Tick Tock Talk: The IQ Brain Clock blog, the most interesting finding was a difference between RD and ADHD subjects in retrospective time estimation. As stated by the authors:

• The most unusual and interesting finding of the study was discovering the retrospective exaggeration of ADHD children when judging how long the CCPT had taken. When asked “how long did that take?” of the CCPT, ADHD children gave more extreme estimates (“Oh! That took 3 hours!”). This finding underscores the temporal distortion problems found in ADHD (West et al., 2000). Childrens’ time estimations become less accurate with increasing duration of the time interval to be perceived, and distortion decreases with age (Zakay, 1992). Barkley’s theory emphasizes that ADHD childrens’ time judgements will be developmentally delayed relative to agemates.

• McGee et al. (2004). Time Perception: Does it Distinguish ADHD and RD Children in a Clinical Sample? Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, Vol. 32, No. 5, October 2004, pp. 481–490 (click here to view)
  

Technorati Tags: psychology, educational psychology, school psychology, special education.learning disabilities, neuropsychology, neuroscience, ADHD, ADD, Barkley, interval timing, mental clock, master time clock, brain clock, reading disability, cognitive, cognition, intelligence, IQ, temporal processing, time judgements, time perception

powered by performancing firefox