The relationship between cognitive enrichment and cognitive control: A systematic investigation of environmental influences on development through socioeconomic status

Abstract

We measured the impact of socioeconomic status (SES) on cognitive processes. We examined cognitive control, specifically working memory (WM), in a sample of N = 141 7‐ to 17‐year‐olds using rule‐guided behavior tasks. Our hypothesis is based on computational modeling data that suggest that the development of flexible cognitive control requires variable experiences in which to implement rule‐guided action. We found that not all experiences that correlated with SES in our sample impacted task performance, and not all experiential variables that impacted performance were associated with SES. Of the experiential variables associated with task performance, only cognitive enrichment opportunities worked indirectly through SES to affect WM as tested with rule‐guided behavior tasks. We discuss the data in the context of necessary precision in SES research.

The role of the visual association cortex in scaffolding prefrontal cortex development: A novel mechanism linking socioeconomic status and executive function

“…Differences in cognitive stimulation may contribute to EF disparities among children exposed to adversity, given the well-established reductions in cognitive stimulation observed among children exposed to caregiver deprivation and from low-SES households (Bradley and Corwyn, 2002; Bradley et al, 2001; Hart and Risley, 1995; Kantor et al, 2004; Smyke et al, 2007). Critically, however, cognitive stimulation varies across the entire SES distribution—with children from higher-SES households experiencing more cognitive stimulation even at the highest end of the SES distribution—and is associated with individual differences in EF (Bradley et al, 2001; Hackman et al, 2015; Rosen et al, 2018; Rosen et al, In Press; Amso et al, 2019), making this a plausible environmental mechanism explaining variation in EF and PFC function.…”

“…Similarly, differences in language quantity and quality also exist across the entire SES spectrum (Cartmill et al, 2013; Fernald et al, 2013; Gilkerson et al, 2017; Hart and Risley, 1995; Schwab and Lew-Williams, 2016). A recent study suggests that variation in cognitive stimulation predict variation in EF even at the high end of the SES distribution (Amso et al, 2019). Growing evidence also documents SES-related differences in neural structure and function, including in the PFC and ventral visual stream (Rosen et al, 2018; Finn et al, 2016; Noble et al, 2015).…”

Assessment of Neighborhood Poverty, Cognitive Function, and Prefrontal and Hippocampal Volumes in Children

“… 15 Thus, it is has been hypothesized that chronic stressors associated with household poverty may be contributing to disruptions in hippocampal development, although there are other possible pathways, such as emotional or material deprivation, disruptions in parent-child relationship, nutrition, and exposure to toxins, that may also contribute to this relation. 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 Lower SES has also been implicated in impaired maturation of the prefrontal cortex, whose protracted development may make it especially vulnerable to chronically stressful environments. 1 , 20 , 21 Chronic activation of the HPA axis might similarly affect tissue volume and region function via glucocorticoid receptors.…”

The emergence of object‐based visual attention in infancy: A role for family socioeconomic status and competing visual features

“…It follows that individual differences in visual experience may drive individual differences in visual processing, and ultimately in OBA development. Broadly, the developmental literature has used home socioeconomic status (SES) as an index of environmental enrichment (Amso, Salhi, & Badre, ; McLoyd, ). Higher SES homes are characterized by access to a greater variety of objects, toys, books, and other complex visual stimuli (Bradley, Corwyn, Mcadoo, & Coll, ).…”