The formation of large-scale brain networks, and their continual refinement, represent crucial developmental processes that can drive individual differences in cognition and which are associated with multiple neurodevelopmental conditions. But how does this organization arise, and what mechanisms drive diversity in organization? We use generative network modeling to provide a computational framework for understanding neurodevelopmental diversity. Within this framework macroscopic brain organization, complete with spatial embedding of its organization, is an emergent property of a generative wiring equation that optimizes its connectivity by renegotiating its biological costs and topological values continuously over time. The rules that govern these iterative wiring properties are controlled by a set of tightly framed parameters, with subtle differences in these parameters steering network growth towards different neurodiverse outcomes. Regional expression of genes associated with the simulations converge on biological processes and cellular components predominantly involved in synaptic signaling, neuronal projection, catabolic intracellular processes and protein transport. Together, this provides a unifying computational framework for conceptualizing the mechanisms and diversity in neurodevelopment, capable of integrating different levels of analysis—from genes to cognition.

Theories of working memory often disagree on the relationships between processing and storage, particularly on how heavily they rely on an attention-based limited resource. Some posit separation and specialization of resources resulting in minimal interference to memory when completing an ongoing processing task, while others argue for a greater overlap in the resources involved in concurrent tasks. Here, we present four experiments that investigated the presence or absence of dual-task costs for memory and processing. The experiments were carried in an adversarial collaboration in which researchers from three opposing theories collaboratively designed a set of experiments and provided differential predictions in line with each of their models. Participants performed delayed recall of aurally and visually presented letters and an arithmetic verification task either as single tasks or with the arithmetic verification task between presentation and recall of letter sequences. Single- and dual-task conditions were completed with and without concurrent articulatory suppression. A consistent pattern of dual-task and suppression costs was observed for memory, with smaller or null effects on processing. The observed data did not fit perfectly with any one framework, with each model having partial success in predicting data patterns. Implications for each of the models are discussed, with an aim for future research to investigate whether some combination of the models and their assumptions can provide a more comprehensive interpretation of the pattern of effects observed here and in relevant previous studies associated with each theoretical framework.

Evidence from dual-task studies suggests that working memory supports the retention and implementation of verbal instructions. One key finding that is not readily accommodated by existing models of working memory is that participants are consistently more accurate at physically performing rather than verbally repeating a sequence of commands. This action advantage has no obvious source within the multi-component model of working memory and has been proposed to be driven by an as yet undetected limited-capacity store dedicated to the temporary maintenance of spatial, motoric, and temporal features of intended movements. To test this hypothesis, we sought to selectively disrupt the action advantage with concurrent motor suppression. In three dual-task experiments, young adults’ immediate memory for sequences of spoken instructions was assessed by both action-based and spoken recall. In addition to classic interference tasks known to tax the phonological loop and central executive, motor suppression tasks designed to impair the encoding and retention of motoric representations were included. These required participants to produce repetitive sequences of either fine motor gestures (Experiment 1, N = 16) or more basic ones (Experiments 2, N = 16, and 3, N = 16). The benefit of action-based recall was reduced following the production of basic gestures but remained intact under all other interference conditions. These results suggest that the mnemonic advantage of enacted recall depends on a cognitive system dedicated to the temporary maintenance of motoric representations of planned action sequences.

The ability to encode, retain, and implement instructions within working memory is central to many behaviours, including classroom activities which underpin learning. The three experiments presented here explored how action—planned, enacted, and observed—impacted 6- to 10-year-old’s ability to follow instructions. Experiment 1 (N = 81) found enacted recall was superior to verbal recall, but self-enactment at encoding had a negative effect on enacted recall and verbal recall. In contrast, observation of other-enactment (demonstration) at encoding facilitated both types of recall (Experiment 2a: N = 81). Further, reducing task demands through a reduced set of possible actions (Experiment 2b; N = 64) led to a positive effect of self-enactment at encoding for later recall (both verbal and enacted). Expecting to enact at recall may lead to the creation of an imaginal spatial-motoric plan at encoding that boosts later recall. However, children’s ability to use the additional spatial-motoric codes generated via self-enactment at encoding depends on the demands the task places on central executive resources. Demonstration at encoding appears to reduce executive demands and enable use of these additional forms of coding.

Two experiments investigated the consequences of action at encoding and recall on the ability to follow sequences of instructions. Children ages 7–9 years recalled sequences of spoken action commands under presentation and recall conditions that either did or did not involve their physical performance. In both experiments, recall was enhanced by carrying out the instructions as they were being initially presented and also by performing them at recall. In contrast, the accuracy of instruction-following did not improve above spoken presentation alone, either when the instructions were silently read or heard by the child (Experiment 1), or when the child repeated the spoken instructions as they were presented (Experiment 2). These findings suggest that the enactment advantage at presentation does not simply reflect a general benefit of a dual exposure to instructions, and that it is not a result of their self-production at presentation. The benefits of action-based recall were reduced following enactment during presentation, suggesting that the positive effects of action at encoding and recall may have a common origin. It is proposed that the benefits of physical movement arise from the existence of a short-term motor store that maintains the temporal, spatial, and motoric features of either planned or already executed actions.