An EEG coherence-based analysis approach for investigating response conflict processes in 7 and 9-year old children

Abstract

Abstract-Understanding the development of the brain's neural networks can reveal critical insights into the cognitive changes that occur from infancy to late childhood. Behavioural metrics including: task accuracy, stimuli recognition, and reaction time show dramatic changes over childhood. In this study we investigated response control using the Erikson Flanker task. In a dataset of 45 EEG recordings, we calculated spectral coherence to measure connectivity between all possible electrode pairs. Coherence measures were performed on two different trial conditions -congruent (where there is no response conflict) and incongruent (where response conflict is induced). The increase in incongruent coherence compared to the congruent was investigated for each electrode pair over 45 healthy subjects aged seven years. The same calculation was then performed on the same group of subjects two years later when they were aged nine years. The results revealed that at age seven years, increased coherence was detected in the left prefrontal to right and left parieto-occipital -i.e. an anatomical region located between the parietal and occipital lobes -within theta band. No increase was found for the older group-at age nine years-which may indicate cognitive development in conflict processing mechanism.

Functional neural architecture of cognitive control mediates the relationship between individual differences in bilingual experience and behaviour

“…Maybe most interesting, modulations of bottom-up (i.e., stimulus-driven ERPs) and top-down mechanisms (induced activity, especially theta, see, e.g., Cavanagh & Frank, 2014;Helfrich & Knight, 2016) in the flanker task had opposite effects on the behavioural interference effect. Smaller interference effects were related to increased bottom-up control (i.e., larger P3 amplitudes and shorter latencies) on the one hand and reduced anterior topdown control (i.e., reduced theta power; Almabruk, Iyer, Tan, Roberts & Anderson, 2015;Jannsens, De Loof, Boehler, Pourtois, & Verguts, 2018;Mazaheri et al, 2014;Suzuki et al, 2018;Zavala et al, 2016) on the other hand. Together with the relationships of the bilingual experience factors with bottom-up and top-down control, these findings mean that longer bilingual duration effectively led to a larger interference effect, while increased intensity/diversity of bilingual usage and increased language switching led to a smaller interference effect.…”

Functional neural architecture of cognitive control mediates the relationship between individual differences in bilingual experience and behaviour

“…Since increased bottom-up control (i.e., larger P3 amplitudes and shorter latencies) was related to a smaller behavioural interference effect, an increased reduction of bottom-up control disadvantaged bilinguals in their interference control. In contrast, a reduction in anterior top-down control (i.e., reduced theta power; Almabruk, Iyer, Tan, Roberts & Anderson, 2015;Jannsens, De Loof, Boehler, Pourtois, & Verguts, 2018;Mazaheri et al, 2014;Suzuki et al, 2018;Zavala et al, 2016) was related to a smaller behavioural interference effect and therefore was advantageous for bilinguals. It also means that longer bilingual duration effectively led to a larger interference effect, while increased intensity/diversity of bilingual usage and increased language switching led to a smaller interference effect.…”

Error monitoring and empathy: Explorations within a neurophysiological context

“…This visual flanker task included three conditions (i.e., congruent, incongruent, reversed) with horizontal stimuli to maintain task difficulty (Mansfield et al, 2013) and engagement (Gendolla, 1999). Furthermore, the flanker task has been used in multiple studies (see Almabruk, Iyer, Tan, Roberts, & Anderson, 2015;Brydges et al, 2012; Brydges, Anderson, Reid, & Fox, 2013;Rueda, Posner, Rothbart, & Davis-Stober, 2004). Finally, we used a global measure of empathy to exclude the possibility of inconsistencies in findings as a result of using different types of multidimensional measures.…”