Difficulties in Controlling Responses
When Tasks Get Difficult
Heather Shapiro
Neuroscience PhD Candidate, UC Davis MIND Institute
Advisor: Dr. Tony Simon, Ph.D.
Chromosome 22q11.2 Deletion Syndrome Family Meeting
March 10, 2013, MIND Institute, Sacramento, CA
Cognitive Control
• System for guiding behavior based on one’s goals
• Associated with school readiness
• Correlates with academic achievement
• Important for independence
Cognitive Control
• System for guiding behavior based on one’s goals
• Associated with school readiness
• Correlates with academic achievement
• Important for independence
Cognitive Control
• System for guiding behavior based on one’s goals
• Associated with school readiness
• Correlates with academic achievement
• Important for independence
Cognitive Control
• System for guiding behavior based on one’s goals
• Associated with school readiness
• Correlates with academic achievement
• Important for independence
Cognitive Control
• System for guiding behavior based on one’s goals
• Associated with school readiness
• Correlates with academic achievement
• Important for independence
Cognitive Control throughout development
• Emerges early in life
• Matures throughout child development and into adolescence
• Changes are concurrent with brain development
Paul Thompson, PhD, UCLA Lab of Neuroimaging
Cognitive Control throughout development
• Emerges early in life
• Matures throughout child development and into adolescence
• Changes are concurrent with brain development
Paul Thompson, PhD, UCLA Lab of Neuroimaging
Cognitive Control in 22q11.2DS
Cognitive Control in 22q11.2DS
• Cognitive control impairments are common in developmental and psychiatric disorders
Cognitive Control in 22q11.2DS
• Cognitive control impairments are common in developmental and psychiatric disorders
• Impairments in cognitive control have been described in 22q
Cognitive Control in 22q11.2DS
• Cognitive control impairments are common in developmental and psychiatric disorders
• Impairments in cognitive control have been described in 22q
• the nature and extent of these impairments are unclear
Cognitive Control in 22q11.2DS
• Cognitive control impairments are common in developmental and psychiatric disorders
• Impairments in cognitive control have been described in 22q
• the nature and extent of these impairments are unclear
• the developmental trajectory of cognitive control in 22q is unclear
Cognitive Control in 22q11.2DS
• Cognitive control impairments are common in developmental and psychiatric disorders
• Impairments in cognitive control have been described in 22q
• the nature and extent of these impairments are unclear
• the developmental trajectory of cognitive control in 22q is unclear
How might cognitive control impairments, and their development, in 22q relate to
real-world challenges and risk for schizophrenia?
Methods: Cognitive control across development in 22q
7 - 14yo
Methods: Cognitive control across development in 22q
7 - 14yo
Battery of computerized
cognitive control tasks:
Methods: Cognitive control across development in 22q
7 - 14yo
Battery of computerized
cognitive control tasks:
Methods: Cognitive control across development in 22q
7 - 14yo
Battery of computerized
cognitive control tasks:
Methods: Cognitive control across development in 22q
7 - 14yo
Battery of computerized
cognitive control tasks:
Methods: Cognitive control across development in 22q
Participants
Age
22q (n=41, 18f/23m)
TD (n=37, 22f/15m)
Range (Mean+/-SD)
Range (Mean+/-SD)
7-14 (11.7 +/- 2.5)
7-14 (10.7 +/- 2.3)
Paradigm - battery of cognitive controls tasks
Go/NoGo task
Visually-Cued Card Sort (VCCS)
Self-Ordered Pointing Test (SOPT)
Methods: Cognitive control across development in 22q
Participants
Age
22q (n=41, 18f/23m)
TD (n=37, 22f/15m)
Range (Mean+/-SD)
Range (Mean+/-SD)
7-14 (11.7 +/- 2.5)
7-14 (10.7 +/- 2.3)
Paradigm - battery of cognitive controls tasks
Go/NoGo task
Visually-Cued Card Sort (VCCS)
Self-Ordered Pointing Test (SOPT)
Methods:
Go/No-Go Task
“Go” trials (75%): press a button as quickly as possible to “whack” the mole
“No-Go” trials (25%): do NOT press button to not “squash” the vegetable
Go/No-Go
“Whack the mole as FAST as you can before it gets away!”
Go/No-Go
“Whack the mole as FAST as you can before it gets away!”
Go/No-Go
“The mole tries to be tricky and put on different disguises.”
“You still need to whack the mole as quickly as you can!”
Go/No-Go
“The mole tries to be tricky and put on different disguises.”
“You still need to whack the mole as quickly as you can!”
Go/No-Go
“The mole tries to be tricky and put on different disguises.”
“You still need to whack the mole as quickly as you can!”
Go/No-Go
“The mole tries to be tricky and put on different disguises.”
“You still need to whack the mole as quickly as you can!”
Go/No-Go
“The mole tries to be tricky and put on different disguises.”
“You still need to whack the mole as quickly as you can!”
Go/No-Go
“The mole tries to be tricky and put on different disguises.”
“You still need to whack the mole as quickly as you can!”
Go/No-Go
“The mole tries to be tricky and put on different disguises.”
“You still need to whack the mole as quickly as you can!”
Go/No-Go
“The mole tries to be tricky and put on different disguises.”
“You still need to whack the mole as quickly as you can!”
Go/No-Go
“The mole tries to be tricky and put on different disguises.”
“You still need to whack the mole as quickly as you can!”
Go/No-Go
“The mole tries to be tricky and put on different disguises.”
“You still need to whack the mole as quickly as you can!”
Go/No-Go
“The mole tries to be tricky and put on different disguises.”
“You still need to whack the mole as quickly as you can!”
Go/No-Go
“The mole tries to be tricky and put on different disguises.”
“You still need to whack the mole as quickly as you can!”
Go/No-Go
“The mole tries to be tricky and put on different disguises.”
“You still need to whack the mole as quickly as you can!”
Go/No-Go
“The mole tries to be tricky and put on different disguises.”
“You still need to whack the mole as quickly as you can!”
Go/No-Go
“The mole tries to be tricky and put on different disguises.”
“You still need to whack the mole as quickly as you can!”
Go/No-Go
“The mole tries to be tricky and put on different disguises.”
“You still need to whack the mole as quickly as you can!”
Go/No-Go
“The mole tries to be tricky and put on different disguises.”
“You still need to whack the mole as quickly as you can!”
Go/No-Go
“The mole tries to be tricky and put on different disguises.”
“You still need to whack the mole as quickly as you can!”
Go/No-Go
“The mole tries to be tricky and put on different disguises.”
“You still need to whack the mole as quickly as you can!”
Go/No-Go
“The mole tries to be tricky and put on different disguises.”
“You still need to whack the mole as quickly as you can!”
Go/No-Go
“The mole tries to be tricky and put on different disguises.”
“You still need to whack the mole as quickly as you can!”
Go/No-Go
“The mole tries to be tricky and put on different disguises.”
“You still need to whack the mole as quickly as you can!”
Go/No-Go
“The mole tries to be tricky and put on different disguises.”
“You still need to whack the mole as quickly as you can!”
Go/No-Go
“The mole tries to be tricky and put on different disguises.”
“You still need to whack the mole as quickly as you can!”
Go/No-Go
“The mole tries to be tricky and put on different disguises.”
“You still need to whack the mole as quickly as you can!”
Go/No-Go
“The mole tries to be tricky and put on different disguises.”
“You still need to whack the mole as quickly as you can!”
Go/No-Go
“Sometimes a vegetable will pop up in your garden.”
“Don’t squash the vegetable!”
Go/No-Go
“Sometimes a vegetable will pop up in your garden.”
“Don’t squash the vegetable!”
Go/No-Go
“Sometimes a vegetable will pop up in your garden.”
“Don’t squash the vegetable!”
Let’s Practice...
Methods:
Go/No-Go Task
•
“Go” trials (75%): press a button as quickly
as possible to “whack” the mole
•
“No-Go” trials (25%): do NOT press button
to not “squash” the vegetable
•
Preceded by 1, 3, or 5 “Go” trials
5
3
1
Results:
Go/No-Go Task
90
correct hit
correct
withholding
5
3
80
60
70
60
50
60
1
40
40
50
20
30
40
20
0
30
10
20
0
10
100
No-Go Accuracy (%)
Accuracy
Accuracy
(%)(%)
Go Accuracy (%)
80
100
90
70
80
TD
22q
TD
22q
0
80
60
40
20
0
Overall
Younger
Older
Overall
Younger
Older
correct
withholding
80
60
70
60
50
60
40
40
50
20
30
40
20
0
30
10
20
0
10
100
0
80
60
40
20
0
100
500
90
80
70
60
1
1
450
400
2
3
4
350
Go Trial
5
Overall
post−
post−
Younger correct
Older error
Overall
Younger
Older
5
120
3
80
40
0
RT Difference (ms)
(post-error minus post-correct)
correct hit
No-Go Accuracy (%)
Accuracy
Accuracy
(%)(%)
Go Accuracy (%)
80
100
90
70
80
22q
TD
Response Time (ms)
90
TD
22q
TD
22q
RT Difference (ms)
(post-error minus post-correct)
Go/No-Go Task
Go Accuracy (%)
Results:
350
250
150
50
−50
−150
8
correct
withholding
60
70
60
50
60
40
40
50
20
30
40
20
0
30
10
20
0
80
60
40
20
0
500
90
80
70
60
1
1
450
400
2
3
4
5
350
Go Trial
post−
22q11.2DS post−
correct
error
TD
Overall
Younger
Older
Overall
Younger
Older
90
80
*
70
60
1
3
5
No-Go Trial Type
(# Preceding Go Trials)
5
120
3
80
40
0
RT Difference (ms)
(post-error minus post-correct)
80
0
10
100
100
Response Time (ms)
correct hit
No-Go Accuracy (%)
Accuracy
Accuracy
(%)(%)
Go Accuracy (%)
80
100
90
70
80
22q
TD
Go Accuracy (%)
90
TD
22q
TD
22q
RT Difference (ms)
(post-error minus post-correct)
Go/No-Go Task
No-Go Accuracy (%)
Results:
350
250
150
50
−50
−150
8
correct
withholding
60
70
60
50
60
40
40
50
20
30
40
20
0
30
10
20
0
80
60
40
20
0
500
90
80
70
60
1
1
450
400
2
3
4
5
350
Go Trial
post−
22q11.2DS post−
correct
error
TD
Overall
Younger
Older
Overall
Younger
Older
90
80
*
120
3
80
40
0
350
250
150
50
−50
−150
No group difference in Go accuracy.
Children with 22q had difficulty withholding a response after 5 Go trials.
70
60
5
RT Difference (ms)
(post-error minus post-correct)
80
0
10
100
100
Response Time (ms)
correct hit
No-Go Accuracy (%)
Accuracy
Accuracy
(%)(%)
Go Accuracy (%)
80
100
90
70
80
22q
TD
Go Accuracy (%)
90
TD
22q
TD
22q
RT Difference (ms)
(post-error minus post-correct)
Go/No-Go Task
No-Go Accuracy (%)
Results:
1
3
5
No-Go Trial Type
(# Preceding Go Trials)
8
No-Go Accuracy (%)
80
70
60
Response Time (ms)
90
TD
500
*
450
400
1350
3
5
post−
post−
No-Go Trial Type
correct Goerror
(# Preceding
Trials)
RT Difference (ms)
(post-error minus post-correct)
22q11.2DS
22q
TD
120
80
40
0
RT Difference (ms)
(post-error minus post-correct)
350
250
150
50
−50
−150
8
10
12
Age
14
RT Difference (ms)
(post-error minus post-correct)
Results:
Go/No-Go Task
350
250
150
50
−50
−150
40
No
Go/No-Go Task
70
60
450
400
1350
3
5
post−
post−
No-Go Trial Type
correct Goerror
(# Preceding
Trials)
80
40
0
460
440
420
400
1
350
250
150
50
−50
2 −150
3 48 5 10
12
Go Trial
Age
14
RT Difference (ms)
(post-error minus post-correct)
80
*
120
480
22q11.2DS
TD
RT Difference (ms)
(post-error minus post-correct)
500
Response Time (ms)
TD
90
RT Difference (ms)
(post-error minus post-correct)
22q11.2DS
22q
TD
Response Time (ms)
No-Go Accuracy (%)
Results:
350
250
150
50
−50
−150
40
No
Go/No-Go Task
70
60
450
400
1350
3
5
post−
post−
No-Go Trial Type
correct Goerror
(# Preceding
Trials)
80
40
0
460
440
420
400
1
350
250
150
50
−50
2 −150
3 48 5 10
12
Go Trial
Age
Response time slowing in both groups suggests typical
monitoring of context leading up to a No-Go trial.
14
RT Difference (ms)
(post-error minus post-correct)
80
*
120
480
22q11.2DS
TD
RT Difference (ms)
(post-error minus post-correct)
500
Response Time (ms)
TD
90
RT Difference (ms)
(post-error minus post-correct)
22q11.2DS
22q
TD
Response Time (ms)
No-Go Accuracy (%)
Results:
350
250
150
50
−50
−150
40
No
Go/No-Go Task
60
40
20
0
450
400
7 350
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
post−Age post−
correct
error
120
100
* *
80
80
40
90
250
150
7050
40
20
0
350
22q11.2DS−you
22q11.2DS−olde
TD−younger
TD−older
80
60
0
c
RT Difference (ms)
No-Gominus
Accuracy
(%)
(post-error
post-correct)
80
500
22q11.2DS-younger
22q11.2DS-older
TD-younger
TD-older
{
100
Response Time (ms)
TD
b
No-Go Accuracy (%)
22q
22q11.2DS
TD
RT Difference (ms)
(post-error minus post-correct)
a
No-Go Accuracy (%)
Results:
TD
22q
−50
60
−150 1
3
8
10 Typ
No-Go
Trial
Age
(# Preceding Go
Tr
Go/No-Go Task
No-Go Accuracy (%)
80
60
40
20
0
500
450
400
7 350
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
post−Age post−
correct
error
22q11.2DS-younger
22q11.2DS-older
TD-younger
TD-older
120
100
* *
{
100
Response Time (ms)
TD
b
80
80
40
90
250
150
7050
40
20
0
350
22q11.2DS−you
22q11.2DS−olde
TD−younger
TD−older
80
60
0
c
RT Difference (ms)
No-Gominus
Accuracy
(%)
(post-error
post-correct)
22q
22q11.2DS
TD
No-Go Accuracy (%)
a
RT Difference (ms)
(post-error minus post-correct)
Results:
TD
22q
−50
60
−150 1
3
8
10 Typ
No-Go
Trial
Age
(# Preceding Go
Tr
TD children had significant age-related associations with No-Go accuracy.
There was significant variance in No-Go performance for older children with 22q.
Summary:
•
•
•
Go/No-Go Task
Response inhibition was impaired in children with 22q.
Performance was better in older TD children relative to younger.
Performance was not associated with age in 22q.
Summary:
Go/No-Go Task
•
•
•
Response inhibition was impaired in children with 22q.
•
Increased performance variance in older children with 22q suggests a
a development of response
b inhibition.
c
22q11.2DS-younger
subgroup with atypical
22q11.2DS-older
Performance was better in older TD children relative to younger.
Performance was not associated with age in 22q.
22q11.2DS
TD
40
20
7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Age
80
60
40
20
0
TD
22q
No-Go Accuracy (%)
60
No-Go Accuracy (%)
No-Go Accuracy (%)
80
* *
{
100
100
0
TD-younger
TD-older
90
22q11.2DS−younger
22q11.2DS−older
TD−younger
TD−older
80
70
60
1
3
5
No-Go Trial Type
(# Preceding Go Trials)
Methods: Cognitive control across development in 22q
Participants
Age
22q (n=41, 18f/23m)
TD (n=37, 22f/15m)
Range (Mean+/-SD)
Range (Mean+/-SD)
7-14 (11.7 +/- 2.5)
7-14 (10.7 +/- 2.3)
Paradigm - battery of cognitive controls tasks
Go/NoGo task
Visually-Cued Card Sort (VCCS)
Self-Ordered Pointing Test (SOPT)
Methods:
Visually-Cued Card Sort (VCCS)
Methods:
Visually-Cued Card Sort (VCCS)
Methods:
Visually-Cued Card Sort (VCCS)
Great Job!!!
Methods:
Visually-Cued Card Sort (VCCS)
Great Job!!!
Methods:
•
•
Visually-Cued Card Sort (VCCS)
Sort by color (80%), predominant dimension (D1)
Sort by shape (20%), dimension 2 (D2)
D1 (80%)
D2 (20%)
90
*
60
70
80
50
60
40
60
50
30
40
40
20
30
10
20
20
0
10
0
0
•
TD
22q
TD
22q
100
Accuracy (%)
Accuracy
Accuracy
(%)
Accuracy
(%)(%)
80
90
70
100
80
Visually-Cued Card Sort (VCCS)
80
*
60
40
20
Overall
Younger
0
Overall
Younger
Total
*
Older
D1 D2
Performacne Ratio
Dim2/Dim1
Results:
1
*
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Older
Children with 22q were more greatly impaired when sorting by the 2nd dimension
relative to the predominant dimension when compared to TD children.
0
0
0
D2 (22q)
D1 (22q)
TD (p=0.003)*
D2 ;(TD)
TD (p=0.02)*
D1;(TD)
1.5
Performacne
Ratio
Accuracy
(%)
Accuracy
(%)
Dim2/Dim1
0
Accuracy (%)
0
Visually-Cued Card Sort (VCCS)
22q (p=0.08)
D2 ;(22q)
22q (p=0.02)*
D1;(22q)
D2 (TD)
100
D1
(TD)
100
80
D2 (22q)
D1(p=0.4)
(22q)
22q
D2
(22q)
TD
(p=0.009)*
D2
(TD)
D1 (22q)
D1 (TD)
(TD)
D2
D1 (TD)
100
60
1
60
100
40
80
40
0.5
20
80
20
60
0
0
0
60
15 7
9
11
9
11
13
15
13
7
9
11 713
15
Age
40
Age
Age
15
7
9
11
13
40
Age
20
Children with 22q significantly improved with age on the primary dimension but not the secondary.
20
TD children significantly improved with age on both dimensions.
0
0
7
9
11
Accuracy (%)
0
Methods:
80
Summary:
•
•
Visually-Cued Card Sort (VCCS)
Rule switching was impaired in 22q compared to TD children.
TD children improved with age on rule switching while children with 22q did not.
Summary:
Rule switching was impaired in 22q compared to TD children.
TD children improved with age on rule switching while children with 22q did not.
1.5
Performacne Ratio
Dim2/Dim1
•
•
Visually-Cued Card Sort (VCCS)
1
0.5
0
7
9
11
Age
13
15
Methods: Cognitive control across development in 22q
Participants
Age
22q (n=41, 18f/23m)
TD (n=37, 22f/15m)
Range (Mean+/-SD)
Range (Mean+/-SD)
7-14 (11.7 +/- 2.5)
7-14 (10.7 +/- 2.3)
Paradigm - battery of cognitive controls tasks
Go/NoGo task
Visually-Cued Card Sort (VCCS)
Self-Ordered Pointing Test (SOPT)
Methods:
Self-Ordered Pointing Test (SOPT)
Methods:
Self-Ordered Pointing Test (SOPT)
Methods:
Self-Ordered Pointing Test (SOPT)
Methods:
Self-Ordered Pointing Test (SOPT)
Methods:
Self-Ordered Pointing Test (SOPT)
Methods:
Self-Ordered Pointing Test (SOPT)
Methods:
Self-Ordered Pointing Test (SOPT)
Great Job!!!
Methods:
Self-Ordered Pointing Test (SOPT)
•
•
Trials with 3, 4, or 6 objects, respectively
•
Span = the # of correct responses prior to the first error
Verbal + Nonverbal versions
Methods:
•
•
Self-Ordered Pointing Test (SOPT)
Trials with 3, 4, or 6 objects, respectively
Verbal + Nonverbal versions
Verbal
•
Nonverbal
Span = the # of correct responses prior to the first error
Results:
Self-Ordered Pointing Test (SOPT)
Verbal
2
22q
TD
6
Verbal
1.6
4
450
0.4
3
400
0
2
Span
1.2
0.8
3
4
# items
6
Response Time (ms)
5
500
*
*
*
3350 post−4
post−6
# itemserror
correct
RT Difference (ms)
(post-error minus post-correct)
Self-Ordered Pointing Test (SOPT)
# errors
Results:
120
80
40
0
2
22q
TD
6
Verbal
1.6
4
450
0.4
3
400
0
2
Span
1.2
0.8
3
4
# items
6
Response Time (ms)
5
500
*
*
*
3350 post−4
post−6
# itemserror
correct
Children with 22q had a lower span compared to TD children.
RT Difference (ms)
(post-error minus post-correct)
Self-Ordered Pointing Test (SOPT)
# errors
Results:
120
80
40
0
Self-Ordered Pointing Test (SOPT)
Verbal
2
6
0.8
Response Time (ms)
1.2
4
3
0.4
3
4
# items
Span on 3 items
2
6
Span on 4 items
*
450
*
400
3
4
350
# items
post−
correct
4
3
6
6
120
80
40
0
post−Span on 6 items
error
2
Span
5
Span
Span
*
5 500
Span
# errors
1.6
0
22q
TD
RT Difference (ms)
(post-error minus post-correct)
Results:
3
4
3
2
2
1
7
9
11
Age
13
15
1
7
9
11
Age
*
13
15
1
7
9
11
Age
*
13
15
2
6
5
1.2
Span
# errors
Nonverbal
1.6
0.8
4
0.4
3
0
2
3
4
# items
22q
TD
6
500
*
450
* 400
*
3 350 post−
4
6
post−
# items error
correct
RT Difference (ms)
(post-error minus post-correct)
Self-Ordered Pointing Test (SOPT)
Response Time (ms)
Results:
120
80
40
0
2
6
5
1.2
Span
# errors
Nonverbal
1.6
0.8
4
0.4
3
0
2
3
4
# items
22q
TD
6
500
*
450
* 400
*
3 350 post−
4
6
post−
# items error
correct
RT Difference (ms)
(post-error minus post-correct)
Self-Ordered Pointing Test (SOPT)
Response Time (ms)
Results:
Children with 22q had a lower span compared to TD children.
120
80
40
0
Self-Ordered Pointing Test (SOPT)
Nonverbal
2
0.8
4
3
0.4
3
4
# items
Span on 3 items
2
6
Span on 4 items
*
*
450
*
400
3
350
4
6
# items
post−
correct
4
3
6
120
80
40
0
post− Span on 6 items
error
5
2
3
Span
Span
Span
5 500
Response Time (ms)
1.2
Span
# errors
1.6
0
22q
TD
6
RT Difference (ms)
(post-error minus post-correct)
Results:
2
4
3
2
1
7
9
11
Age
13
15
1
7
9
11
Age *
13
15
1
7
9
11
Age
*
13
15
Summary:
•
•
Self-Ordered Pointing Test (SOPT)
Verbal and nonverbal working memory was impaired in children with 22q.
Age-related associations with performance were the same between groups.
Summary: Cognitive control across development in 22q
response inhibition
cognitive flexibility
working memory
Summary: Cognitive control across development in 22q
response inhibition
cognitive flexibility
working memory
•
Reactive response inhibition was impaired in a subpopulation of older children with 22q.
Summary: Cognitive control across development in 22q
response inhibition
cognitive flexibility
working memory
•
Reactive response inhibition was impaired in a subpopulation of older children with 22q.
•
Rule switching was impaired in a sub-population of
older children with 22q.
Summary: Cognitive control across development in 22q
response inhibition
cognitive flexibility
•
Reactive response inhibition was impaired in a subpopulation of older children with 22q.
•
Rule switching was impaired in a sub-population of
older children with 22q.
•
Age-related working memory improvements were
typical in the children with 22q.
working memory
Summary: Cognitive control across development in 22q
response inhibition
cognitive flexibility
•
Reactive response inhibition was impaired in a subpopulation of older children with 22q.
•
Rule switching was impaired in a sub-population of
older children with 22q.
•
Age-related working memory improvements were
typical in the children with 22q.
working memory
The impaired performance of a sub-group of older children with 22q on
specific cognitive control processes suggests an interesting group to follow.
Conclusions
•
Neurocognitive experiments such as these might help us to better understand
the nature of cognitive control challenges in children with 22q.
•
Individual performance patterns might identify those with more, and less,
typical cognitive control abilities.
•
As part of a larger study, this investigation might help identify risk factors
leading to early diagnosis and targeted therapeutic intervention.
Future Directions
•
Test larger sample of participants in order to identify subgroups that might be
separable based on other intervening variables.
•
•
Conduct longitudinal analyses to directly measure developmental trajectories.
Examine the relationship of cognitive control variables to clinical measures.
Future Directions
•
Test larger sample of participants in order to identify subgroups that might be
separable based on other intervening variables.
•
•
Conduct longitudinal analyses to directly measure developmental trajectories.
Examine the relationship of cognitive control variables to clinical measures.
Early intervention is key!
Cognitive control processes can be targeted for improvement.
Future Directions
•
Test larger sample of participants in order to identify subgroups that might be
separable based on other intervening variables.
•
•
Conduct longitudinal analyses to directly measure developmental trajectories.
Examine the relationship of cognitive control variables to clinical measures.
Early intervention is key!
Cognitive control processes can be targeted for improvement.
Thank You
Tony Simon
Naomi Hunsaker
Ling Wong
Andrea Quintero
Bella McLennan
Josh Cruz
Nina Cung
**participants and families**