Lec 4 Flashcards

Question 1

Q

Cog control

aka
Definition
Cog C vs SC
how Cog C is related to SC

Answer

A

Cognitive control (executive function/ control)

strive for a goal when there’s conflicts that grab your attention
- Cog control vs SC:
  - Cog control requires us to flexibly direct attention when there is temptation
  - SC is not specifically about attention (but relies on attention)
SC is similar to inhibition; inhibition is a facet of cog control

Question 2

Q

Exploring cognitive control tasks – Stroop

compatible
incompatible
Emotional stroop task
kids version
how is cog C used in stroop task
Stroop effect calculation
- indicator of better control
Murphy et al 2012

Answer

A

Exploring cognitive control tasks – Stroop

Normal stroop task
- Compatible: color of word = word
- Incompatible: color of word diff than word
- - Emotional stroop task
- Emotion condition: there is emotional word that may affect us
  - Ex. aunt just died of cancer and that emotionally delays you in the task
- Neutral condition: the words have no emotional meaning
- - Stroop variant – kids version
- Name the animal of the picture vs the label of an animal name
Stroop task: b/c reading is over-learned, to complete Stroop one needs to inhibit/suppress reading response & focus on (colour) naming response
Stroop effect = incongruent RT – congruent RT
- Smaller Stroop effect = better control
Murphy et al 2012
- Brought in drug addicts
- Have them do emo stroop
- A: emo condition (words are more meaningful to them)
- B: control condition
- Results: Addicts spend more time in A compared to non-addicts

Question 3

Q

Exploring cognitive control tasks - Stop signal task

Common stop signal task in daily life
Stop signal task in the lab
- Circle vs X
- SSD
- Longer SSD = ?
Stop signal task variant – for animals
- Go trial
- Stop trial
- Result

Answer

A

Stop signal task: Can you stop once you’ve already decided to go?
Common stop signal task in daily life
- 1. driver decides to go on a yellow light
- 1. Sees police in the intersection
    * If the driver crosses the intersection and the light turns red while he is crossing, he will get a ticket
- 1. Qs: can the driver stop his car when he wants to cross during the yellow light
Stop signal task in the lab
- Circle = go
  - When you see circle, you press the button
- X = stop signal delay (SSD)
  - When you see X, you do NOT press button
- 90% of the trials = go trials
- 10% of trials = stop trials (see circle then X)
- Stop signal comes after GO signal
  - SSD is calibrated for 50% error rate (where most ppl will have 50% error)
  - Longer SSD = better inhibitory control
    - SSD = time b/w seeing circle and X
    - If there is a long SSD time, and ppl can refrain from pressing the button, they have higher inhibitory control
Stop signal task variant – for animals
- 1. Rat goes in the chamber
    * 2/3 trials = go trial
    * 1/3 trials = stop trial
    * Go trial
    - 1. Hear a sound
    - 1. Need to run as quickly as they can to the other side of the port
    - 1. If they reach the port in less than ½ a sec, they have water; if they take longer = no water
        Stop trials
    - 1. Hear a sound
    - 1. There’s a delay (SSD), and they see a light
        * The light = stop
    - 1. Opp to go trials
        * If you get to the port in less than ½ sec = no water
        * Take longer = hv water
- Same as humans: the longer the SSD/ delay the rats can overcome, they have strong inhibitory control

Question 4

Q

Exploring cognitive control tasks - Operation Span task

Describe the task
Result
How is it a task of inhibitory control
How to calculate WMC

Answer

A

Exploring cognitive control tasks - Operation Span task (OSPAN)

1. primary task: Told to remember letters (ex. SAHBK)
1. interfering secondary processing task: Then do a few math qs (ex. 5 x 5 = 25)
1. What are the letters?
Demo result: can recall up to 5 letters
Corresponds to Miller’s WM capacity: 5 +/- 2
This is also a task of inhibitory control
- You need to maintain the item in WM (letters)
- And suppress the distraction (math problems)
WMC = # of trial items correctly recalled, weighted by trial length
OSPAN performance predict performance on cog abilities

Question 5

Q

Exploring cognitive control tasks - Task Switching paradigm

high voice decision
low voice decision
Results
- repeat trials
- switch trials
Switch cost
child’s version

Answer

A

Exploring cognitive control tasks - Task Switching paradigm

When you hear high/low voice, you need to make diff types of decisions
- High voice = odd/even judgment (8 = even)  pink = high voice
- Low voice = high/low judgment (3 = low)  blue = low voice
Results
- Repeat trials: When ppl are doing only one type of task (ex. blue #s/ low voice = high/low judgement), the rx time is fast
- Switch trials: When ppl have switch to another task (ex. from high/low judgements to odd/even judgements), the rx time is slower when there is a switch
Rs look at the repeat and switch trials
Switch costs = switch RT – non-switch RT
- Larger switch costs = Less cognitive flexibility (but perhaps more stability)
There is a child’s version
- Sometimes they name the color
- Sometimes they name the shape of animal

Question 6

Q

Miyake & Friedman, 2012 - The unity & diversity of cognitive control

M & F’s view on whether diff cog control tasks measure the same construct
- unity
- diversity
3 types of cog control**
- how does updating and shifting contain inhibition?
Is there a genetic component?
Is cog control and 3 facets related to IQ?
*

Answer

A

Miyake & Friedman, 2012 - The unity & diversity of cognitive control

Since there are so many tasks assessing cognitive control, do they all assess the same latent construct?
Miyake & Freeman think: These tasks are united, yet diverse
- Unity: All correlate with one another
- Diversity: Not perfectly correlated, thus separable
  - i.e. Stroop task and stop task are correlated but not perfectly correlated
3 types of cog control (**influential model)
- 1. Updating (ex. what are the letters mentioned)
    * Maintaining task goals in memory
- 1. Shifting (ex. task switch – odd/even & high/low; color & animal)
    * Flexibly adapting to new task
- 1. Inhibition (ex. stroop task, stop signal task)
    * self-stopping based on task goals
- All types have a bit of inhibition in it
  - Ex. updating – keep updated on the new letters, while inhibiting the other task
  - Ex. Shifting – need to inhibit that other set of instructions
Strong genetic component to control (.75 = correlation from MZ twin studies)
Recent studies show that cog control and all 3 facets are related to IQ

Question 7

Q

Friedman et al., 2011 -“don’t touch toy” task

Methods
Results
- self restraint overall
- self restraint
  - inhibition
  - updating
  - switching

Answer

A

Friedman et al., 2011 -“don’t touch toy” task

At early age (14 mo), rs put nice in front of kids and tell them “don’t touch toy”
examined whether self-restraint in early childhood predicted 3 executive fx (EFs; inhibiting, updating working memory, and shifting task) later on among twins.
3 executive fx = common EF factor
- Gps w/ poor self-restraint = touch the toy
- Gps w/ better self-restraint = didn’t touch
Rs followed the kids
Results:
- Overall, all kids get better at self-restraint as they grow older
- Kids who could self-restrain, at age 17
  - Had better inhibition
  - No difference in updating
  - Those who can self-restraint had worse shifting
    - IOW: Good restraint might work against readily switching
  - Higher IQ, but mediated by EF factors

Question 8

Q

Dual mechanisms of cog control

the 2 mechanisms

Answer

A

Braver et al 2012

1. Proactive control: (proactive = b4)
  * = constant reminding themselves of the goal; where a conflict arises, turn down one of the event (‘early selection’)
  * anticipatory maintenance of goal-relevant information before demanding event
  * IOW: you hv a goal, act on the goal, even b4 you face conflict
1. Reactive control
  * = after the fact; ‘late correction’
  * Transient, recruited as needed in a just-in-time manner after demanding event detected
  * IOW: you show control only when it is needed in the situation

Examples

Reactive control:
- 1. At 9AM, she gets a msg to get groceries afterwork, so she tells herself to go shopping after work
- 1. 5PM, someone asks for a meeting, person goes for the meeting instead
- 1. At 6PM, realizes she’s late, and goes to get groceries
Proactive:
- 1. At 4:30PM, she gets msg to get groceries afterwork
- 1. at 5PM, someone asks for a meeting, person refuses the meeting as she has to go shopping after work
- 1. At 5:30PM, she goes to get groceries

Question 9

Q

Reactive & proactive control on Stroop - Conflict adaptation

reactive control during stroop task
proactive control during stroop task
Results
Conflict adaptation

Answer

A

Reactive control during stroop task (goal: say the color):

1. See blue word in blue color → says blue
1. See red word in green color → says red, then reminds herself “attend color”, so she then says green

Proactive control

1. Keeps the goal in mind “I need to attend to color”
1. See blue word in blue color  says blue
1. Keeps the goal in mind “I need to attend to color”
1. See red word in green color  says green
Results
- Orange = incongruent trial
- White = congruent trial
- X-axis: the trial type b4 the current trial (congruent or incongruent)
- If trial b4 is congruent, and current trial is incongruent → slowest RT
- If trial b4 is congruent, and current trial is congruent → fastest RT
- If trial b4 is incongruent, and current trial = congruent → slower RT
- If trial b4 is incongruent, and current trial is incongruent → faster RT

Conflict adaptation: if prev trials are all incongruent, you have the mindset of “need to attend to color”; in subsequent trials, the RT decreases as you adapt to the conflict

Question 10

Q

Dual process model of self-control - Thinking fast and slow (Kahneman, 2011)

2 systems

Answer

A

Dual process theory: 2 systems

1. automatic, unconscious/implicit/impulsive process
1. controlled, conscious/explicit/reflective process.
influenced by situational, dispositional conditions
- This leads to SC outcome

Question 11

Q

Neuroscience of control - situational threats to control

control equation
2 ways to cause SC failure
brain regions in stop system
brain regions in go system
Heatherton & Wagner, 2011 - model
- 2 threats to self regulation & brain region affected
- Main reason for SR failure
- Is the model still used?

Answer

A

Control = executive/reflective system – impulsive/emotional (dopaminergic) system

IOW: control is controlled by 2 opposing systems (hence the “-“)
Point: Anything that decreases the power of the executive system or strengthens the impulsive system → self-control failure
And, there are brain regions that correspond to each of these two systems
- Red = stop system
- Green = go system
  - Red: PFC, anterior cingulate
  - Green: ventral striatum (nucleus accumbens), ventromedial PFC (vmPFC), amygdala
Heatherton & Wagner, 2011
- 2 threats to SR
  - impulse system amplified → impulses overwhelm PFC
  - exec system is impaired → impair PFC fx
SR failure is caused by PF subcortical circuit is broken
Model not really accepted anymore

Question 12

Q

brain on cocaine (films) - Cocaine users inhibiting vs. not-inhibiting cravings

Nora Volklow et al, 2010

Methods
Findings
- NAcc & vmpfc
- R IFG
  *

Answer

A

Nora Volklow et al, 2010

Methods
Did fMRI scans of cocaine addicts
Showed addicts images related to cocaine
Addicts were told to inhibit responses or just look at the images
Results
- Decreased activation in Nacc (nucleus accumbens) & VMPFC for those inhibiting cravings
- The larger decreases in Nacc activation (during inhibition) related to larger increases in right IFG activation
  - right IFG activation is thought to represent the exec system

Question 13

Q

Brain as predictor - IFG activation in lab and real-world smoking

Berkman, Falk, & Lieberman, 2011
- Methods
  - Part 1
  - Part 2
- Results
  - low, avg, high r IFG activation
  - What does this suggest

Answer

A

Berkman, Falk, & Lieberman, 2011

Recuit real smokers and followed them
31 heavy smokers (>10 cigarettes per day, 7 days/week) who wanted to quit
- NOTE: This is Underpowered
Methods
1. Completed Go/no-go task in lab while being scanned with fMRI
  * Press the button when you see any letter, except when you see “x”
  * Since there are way more other letters presented compared to “x”, the pressing button becomes a habit
1. Called smokers and they had to report cravings & smoking in the past 15 min
  * Avg: 8 times/day for 21 days
Hypothesis: IFG activation in go/no-go will moderate craving-smoking link
- Will not necessarily predict fewer desires (though perhaps fewer cigarettes smoked)
- IOW, this doesn’t mean that those have stronger IFG activation during the go/no-go task will have fewer desires;
- It is less about system 1 (ppl exposed to desires), and more about system 2 (regulate desires, break the link b/w craving and smoking)
Results:
- X-axis; +2 = strong cravings; -2 = no cravings
- Among those w/ avg rIFG activation
  - The more they crave, the more they smoke
- For those w/ low avg rIFG activation
  - Super strong link
  - Whenever I crave system → very strong motivation to smoke
- For those w/ high avg rIFG activation
  - You have craving, but it does not mean you will smoke
This suggests that IFG is the link b/w craving and smoking
- IFG also predicted less smoking (at least for those with strong cravings)

Question 14

Q

Conflict monitoring theory - botvinick, Cohen, & Carter, 2004

When is control recruited?
Define Conflict
3 types of conflict - define
- Incongruent trial
- Under-determined choices
- Errors
Kerns et al, 2004 finding

Answer

A

Q: Cohen asked: How is control recruited? How do we know when to control?

The answer is not that WE consciously decide to—humuncular thinking!
A: Control recruited when there is conflict in information processing
Conflict: competition between inconsistent mental representations
- Incongruent trial: competition between correct response and habitual response
  - E.g., incongruent stroop trial
- Under-determined choices: Conflict among multiple permissible, desirable responses
  - E.g., Do you want $1 today or $3 in one week
- Errors: Conflict between erroneous response and correct/goal-directed response
  - E.g., playing wrong note on guitar

2 hypotheses

Deanna Barch et al, 2001 - Conflict detected in dACC
Kerns et al, 2004 - Conflict triggers subsequent control
- When there is an incongruent control, you messed up
- You were told to pay attention
- So in subsequent incongruent trials, you exert more control
- Images: ACC (left) and DLPFC (R image)
- X = ACC activity on prev trial
- Results: the higher the ACC activity on prev trial, the more activity you see in the PFC during the current trial
- IOW: errors or conflicts → brain tells you to pay attention → lead to more control activity subsequent trial

Question 15

Q

Errors: Ultimate conflict - The error-related negativity (ERN)

EEG Pro over fMRI
ERP
ERN
- When does the peak occur

Answer

A

EEG: can measure brain activity on the scalp
- Pro over fMRI: can precisely see when it happens (50-100ms)
ERP: use EEG and lock it to an event
ERN: a class of ERP
- Ex. ppl do stroop task
- You lock the EEG (aka cut it to repeat itself)
  - Here = repeated mistakes on the stroop task
- When they make a mistake, you see a strong spike to -ve polarity (grey) in ACC
  - NOTE: y axis – the top = -ve
- - Measured with EEG, precise timing
Generated by the ACC
Very fast: Peaks by 50-100ms post-error
- Sometimes starts before error!

Question 16

Q

Does control diminish with fatigue? - ERN, time on task, and motivation

Boksem, Meijman, & Lorist, 2006
Methods
H
- intervals 1-6
- internal 7
Results

Answer

A

Boksem, Meijman, & Lorist, 2006

19 participants
- Small N, but within-subject, so good power
Completed Flanker task continuously for 2 hours – say what direction is the central arrow pointing at
- *the peripheral arrows appear first, followed by the central arrows
- - No breaks!
    - 3,500-4,000 trials
- After 2 hours, they were told if they performed another 20 mins, they could win extra $25 (motivation)
Hypotheses:
- Control (behaviour & ERN) will decline with time on task
  - IOW: as the task progresses, ppl get fatigued, and performance declines
- They will recover (somewhat) when motivated
Results
- There are 7 intervals
  - 1 to 6 = control
  - 7 = incentive
- Table shows that: RTs and SDs increase with time on task (from interval 1 to 6)
  - Since the relationship is not exafctly linear Does variability—mind wandering?
- ERNs (aka activity in ACC) decrease with time on task
- Motivation (somewhat) reverses effects of fatigue
  - The RT is faster (~to trial 2)
  - The ERN partially increases

Question 17

Q

Self-regulation and self-control

SR key characteristic
SC key characteristic
3 components of SR
Does it have an order?

Answer

A

Self-regulation and self-control

SR = goal-directed behavior within a time limit
- Ex. achievements, goals in close relationships
SC = a subset of self-regulatory processes; override unwanted impulses/urges (ex. eat high calorie desert when on diet)
3 main components of successful SR
- 1. Standards to self-regulate/monitor against
- 1. Sufficient motivation
- 1. Sufficient capacity to achieve this when there’s obstacles/temptations
It follows this order b/c even if you have lots of capacity, you cannot SR when you have no motivation and direction
EFs subserve (increase) the capacity of SE

Question 18

Q

exec fx

3 basic EFs
experimental tasks to measure 3 EFs
Wisconsin Card Sorting Test

Answer

A

3 basic EFs
1. Updating: WM (ex. update relevant info)
1. Inhibition: inhibit impulses
1. Shifting (shift b/w tasks)
experimental tasks to measure 3 EFs
- updating: operation span & n-back measures
- Inhibition: stoop task
- Shifting: switch cost task (any tasks that measures the time it takes ppl to mental switch b/w task sets)
Wisconsin Card Sorting Test: measures several EFs

Question 19

Q

theories explaining the link b/w EFs and SR

4 theories

Answer

A

4 mechanisms

1. 3 facets of EFs (updating, inhibiting, and shifting) support SR
1. EFs like WM indicates SR (ex. unwanted desires)
1. temp decrease in EFs may lead to situational risk factors, which in turn lead to SR failure
1. EFs are trainable, and may translate to better behavioral SR in other areas

Question 20

Q

5 WM operations and SR

Active representation
Exec attention
- theory of desire
Goal shielding
Suppression of ruminative thoughts
Down-regulation of unwanted affect and cravings

Answer

A

1 Active representation

frequent goal relevant info available → Info: ST → LT (maybe become habit) → Successful SR → achieve goals
If not SR is directionless/ fails

2 Exec attention

Attractive stimuli vs goals compete for attention
Theory of desire: tempting stimuli automatically attract attention due to motivational salience
If person attends to tempting stimulus, thoughts and emotions related to the desire is rehearsed in WM → stronger desires → use up WMC
viewing time and eye-tracking methods:
- Less crowded WMC → more likely to resist tempting stimuli (sex, OH)

3 Goal shielding

(re)direct attention the goal
passive form of inhibitory control
high WMC → resist temptation
low WMC → give into temptation

4 Suppression of ruminative thoughts

high WMC → can direct attention to goal → inhibit intrusive/ruminative/mind wandering thoughts

5 Down-regulation of unwanted affect and cravings

unwanted craving → WMC supports emo regulation strategies (ex. cog reappraisal, suppressing emo when provoked) → successful SR

Question 21

Q

Box 2 – active vs passive inhibition

active inhibition
passive inhibition

Answer

A

Active/Direct inhibition: basal ganglia network signal PFC (ex. inferior frontal gyrus) to inhibit responses

top down inhibition
decreases neural activation to tempting stimuli
“Do not do X”

Passive inhibition: pay attention to a goal → increase activation for goal-relevant info & less activation for non-goal info (→ less interference)

Analogy: spotlight shines on an actor onstage and keep other areas in darkness
“Do Y”
As a result, more WMC is used to achieve the goal in PFC
active and passive inhibition independently influence to impulse control

Question 22

Q

Active inhibition & responses

mechanism
low in b inhibition →?

Answer

A

inhibit b (ex. bad habits) → SR
low in b inhibition are more strongly influenced by impulses
low in b inhibition → experience stronger impulses → Habits/ impulses activate motor schemas → more impulse control problems (ex. weight gain, drug abuse, affair)

Question 23

Q

Task switching: shifting means vs shifting goals

Cognitive control dilemma
2 mechanisms that support SR and goal achievement
*

Answer

A

Task switching: shifting means vs shifting goals

Cognitive control dilemma: ppl need to choose b/w pursuing goals rigidly (rigidity) vs be open to alternatives (flexibility)
WM and inhibition mechanisms support SR and achieve goals (by preventing external and internal distractions)
Flexibility in task switching is related to SR in 2 ways
- 1. ppl replace suboptimal w/ other means to reach the same goal (means shifting)
    * Ex. if the goal is motivating, ppl experience less switch costs
- 1. ppl to disengage from a self-regulatory goal and pursue alternatives (goal shifting)
    * Ex. goal switching → goal progress → +ve mood
    * Ex. dieters occasionally allow themselves to indulge in a tasty desert (issue: they may overindulge → regret)

Question 24

Q

Mech of temp reductions in EFs
- 2 ways
- Glucose effect
what training boost SC?

Answer

A

Temporary reductions in EFs as a common mechanism

situational factors → reduce EFs → decrease SR
2 ways
- 1 concurrent task load
- 2 cons of prev high intensity engagement of EFs (ex. ego depletion)
Baumeister et al: act of SC → deplete resources → SC failure later
Diff EFs activate similar brain regions, diff EFs may influence eo
consume glucose → increase EF (ex. WMC performance) → SC

Boosting SC by training EFs

training → improve EFs (like WMC)
Ex. improve OH/ overeating b, esp for those low on EF and hv bad habits

Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Lec 4 Flashcards

Brainscape's Knowledge Genome^TM