Children's Task-Switching Efficiency: Missing Our Cue?

Abstract

In simple rule-switching tests, 3-and 4-year-olds can follow each of two sorting rules but sometimes make perseverative errors when switching. Older children make few errors but respond slowly when switching. These age-related changes might reflect the maturation of executive functions (e.g., inhibition). However, they might also reflect children's ability to use task cues. Cue-processing difficulties predict switch costs in adult task switching . It is unknown whether they explain children's task-switching errors or slowing. The current study tested whether inhibition, cue interpretation, or both predict 3-to 6-year-old children's switch-related errors (Experiment 1) and slowing (Experiment 2). Children performed a computerized task-switching test in which most trials were preceded by an audiovisual cue that instructed them to switch rules, or to stay-that is, continue using the current rule. Interspersed control trials used no cue. In Experiment 1, 3-and 4-year-olds made as many errors on cued stay trials as on cued switch trials; however, children were significantly more accurate on uncued stay trials. The presence of cues, not switching demands, predicted errors. Accuracy was predicted by children's speed in a simpler task in which children matched stimuli on only one dimension (shape or color), with no stimulus conflict or rule switches. Additional variance was predicted by an unrelated measure of processing speed. In Experiment 2, switch costs in 4.5-to 6-year-olds were similarly predicted by speed in the simpler unidimensional matching task.

Cognitive flexibility in young children: General or task-specific capacity?

“…One possible explanation is that there are multiple inhibitory processes that are all elicited to varying degrees by different tests of inhibition and (less directly) by different tests of flexibility, such that the association between any two tests cannot currently be predicted. This hypothesis has not been explored, but it is consistent with existing evidence (Blackwell, Chatham, Wiseheart, & Munakata, 2014;Cepeda et al, 2000;Holt & Deák, 2015). In addition, although Zelazo and colleagues (2003) claimed that negative priming, an inhibitory process, affects preschoolers' rule switching, Ramscar and colleagues (2013) showed that the relevant findings can be explained by associative learning processes.…”

“…Notably, it is also a predictor of older children's cognitive flexibility, at least in rule-switching tests (Cepeda et al, 2000). A recent study (Holt & Deák, 2015) extended this finding to preschool-aged children. However, in the current study, response speed in a visuomotor test (Box Completion) only marginally predicted rule-switching flexibility.…”

“…An interpretation consistent with all available data is that children's flexibility is determined by multiple factors, including (a) processing factors related to task type, for example, cue induction for inferences of meaning, or rule switching; (b) subtask-specific factors (e.g., understanding specific cues or rules; Munakata & Yerys, 2001); (c) cognitive moderators, including response speed (Cepeda, Blackwell, & Munakata, 2013;Cepeda et al, 2001), working memory efficiency (Cepeda & Munakata, 2007;Holt & Deák, 2015), and possibly (d) a faculty for selecting abstract relations for novel inferences (i.e., ''fluid intelligence''). These factors together predict considerable variability in children's flexibility.…”

“…In sum, previous and current results do not point to a clear specific causal relation between developing inhibitory mechanisms and children's cognitive flexibility. Recent evidence has suggested a relation between vWM efficiency and cognitive flexibility in children as well as adults (Cepeda & Munakata, 2007;Gruber & Goschke, 2004;Holt & Deák, 2015;Schneider & Logan, 2009). However, we found no relation between Memory for Names performance and any flexibility measure.…”

“…For example, 3-year-olds' comprehension of words in the DCCS (e.g., ''color,'' ''shape'') predicts whether they perseverate (Munakata & Yerys, 2001). In addition, the strength of preschoolers' working memory representation of rules determines their rule-switching speed even when they do not make errors (Holt & Deák, 2015). Children's conceptual knowledge also affects how readily they switch between subtasks (Blaye, Bernard-Peyron, Paour, & Bonthoux, 2006;Deák, Ray, & Pick, 2004).…”