Thinking Meets Worrying:
What Happens Next?
Tony J. Simon Ph.D. & Josh R. Cruz B.S.
Cognitive Analysis and Brain Imaging Lab
http://cabil.mindinstitute.org
tjsimon@ucdavis.edu
Funding: NIH 2R01HD04269 (Simon), K99MH086616 (Beaton),
UC Davis CEDD, UC Davis T32 MCRTP (Stoddard/Angkustsiri),
Dempster Family Foundation
Thursday, April 25, 13
Thinking & Feeling Directly Interact!
Cognitive impairments limit competence in numerous domains
but vary widely among children and across ages
Despite cognitive limitations some children outperform predictions
from testing while others fall very short
“copers” show lower anxiety, higher real world functioning and often
achieve in academics far beyond what cognitive testing would predict
“strugglers” show the reverse pattern - more anxiety poorer
adaptive functioning and worse academics
2
Thursday, April 25, 13
Thinking & Feeling Directly Interact!
Cognitive impairments limit competence in numerous domains
but vary widely among children and across ages
Despite cognitive limitations some children outperform predictions
from testing while others fall very short
“copers” show lower anxiety, higher real world functioning and often
achieve in academics far beyond what cognitive testing would predict
“strugglers” show the reverse pattern - more anxiety poorer
adaptive functioning and worse academics
Our new focus on “cognitive-affective interactions” shows how the
relationship of these two powerful forces can influence outcomes
Allows a sharper focus on how to optimize learning, increase quality of
life and possibly reduce risks for serious psychiatric outcomes
This will be the focus of the longitudinal grant to be submitted this year
2
Thursday, April 25, 13
Attention - Selection & Filtering
Attention: resolves competition between items in environment
can be “top-down” - controlled by goals or plans (volitional)
can be “bottom-up” - driven by objects/events in the world
(reactive)
3
Thursday, April 25, 13
Attention - Selection & Filtering
Attention: resolves competition between items in environment
can be “top-down” - controlled by goals or plans (volitional)
Neuron
can be “bottom-up” - driven by objects/events in the world
Review
(reactive)
Event Driven
Goal Driven
us while we are considering the meaning of a sentence in the
thesis we are writing, or a monkey may quickly react to the
appearance of a predator while grooming or eating.
Reorienting to new objects may occur reflexively, based on
their high sensory salience (Jonides and Yantis, 1988), particularly when we do not have a specific task to do (Pashler and
Harris, 2001), but distinctive objects attract attention more effectively when they are also behaviorally relevant (Yantis and
Thursday, April 25, 13
Figure 1. Focusing Attention and
Reorienting Attention Recruit Interacting
Networks
(Left panel) Focusing attention on an object
produces sustained activations in dorsal frontoparietal regions in the intraparietal sulcus, superior
parietal lobule, and frontal eye fields, as well as visual regions in occipital cortex (yellow and orange
colors) but sustained deactivations in more ventral
regions in supramarginal gyrus and superior temporal gyrus (TPJ) and middle and inferior prefrontal
cortex (blue and green colors). (Right panel) When
an unexpected but important event evokes a
reorienting of attention, both the dorsal regions
and the formerly deactivated ventral regions are
now transiently activated.
1999), by the preparation of a specific response (Astafiev et al.,
2003; Connolly et al., 2002), or by the short-term memory of a
visual scene (LaBar et al., 1999; Pessoa et al., 2002). The dorsal
system is also involved in linking relevant stimuli to responses, as
it is modulated when people change their motor plan for an object (Rushworth et al., 2001). Under some conditions, the preparatory activation of the dorsal frontoparietal network extends to
visual cortex, presumably reflecting the top-down modulation
3
Attention - Selection & Filtering
Attention: resolves competition between items in environment
can be “top-down” - controlled by goals or plans (volitional)
Neuron
can be “bottom-up” - driven by objects/events in the world
Review
(reactive)
Event Driven
Goal Driven
us while we are considering the meaning of a sentence in the
thesis we are writing, or a monkey may quickly react to the
appearance of a predator while grooming or eating.
Reorienting to new objects may occur reflexively, based on
their high sensory salience (Jonides and Yantis, 1988), particularly when we do not have a specific task to do (Pashler and
Harris, 2001), but distinctive objects attract attention more effectively when they are also behaviorally relevant (Yantis and
Thursday, April 25, 13
Figure 1. Focusing Attention and
Reorienting Attention Recruit Interacting
Networks
(Left panel) Focusing attention on an object
produces sustained activations in dorsal frontoparietal regions in the intraparietal sulcus, superior
parietal lobule, and frontal eye fields, as well as visual regions in occipital cortex (yellow and orange
colors) but sustained deactivations in more ventral
regions in supramarginal gyrus and superior temporal gyrus (TPJ) and middle and inferior prefrontal
cortex (blue and green colors). (Right panel) When
an unexpected but important event evokes a
reorienting of attention, both the dorsal regions
and the formerly deactivated ventral regions are
now transiently activated.
1999), by the preparation of a specific response (Astafiev et al.,
2003; Connolly et al., 2002), or by the short-term memory of a
visual scene (LaBar et al., 1999; Pessoa et al., 2002). The dorsal
system is also involved in linking relevant stimuli to responses, as
it is modulated when people change their motor plan for an object (Rushworth et al., 2001). Under some conditions, the preparatory activation of the dorsal frontoparietal network extends to
visual cortex, presumably reflecting the top-down modulation
3
Attention - Selection & Filtering
Attention: resolves competition between items in environment
can be “top-down” - controlled by goals or plans (volitional)
Neuron
can be “bottom-up” - driven by objects/events in the world
Review
(reactive)
Event Driven
Goal Driven
us while we are considering the meaning of a sentence in the
thesis we are writing, or a monkey may quickly react to the
appearance of a predator while grooming or eating.
Reorienting to new objects may occur reflexively, based on
their high sensory salience (Jonides and Yantis, 1988), particularly when we do not have a specific task to do (Pashler and
Harris, 2001), but distinctive objects attract attention more effectively when they are also behaviorally relevant (Yantis and
Thursday, April 25, 13
Figure 1. Focusing Attention and
Reorienting Attention Recruit Interacting
Networks
(Left panel) Focusing attention on an object
produces sustained activations in dorsal frontoparietal regions in the intraparietal sulcus, superior
parietal lobule, and frontal eye fields, as well as visual regions in occipital cortex (yellow and orange
colors) but sustained deactivations in more ventral
regions in supramarginal gyrus and superior temporal gyrus (TPJ) and middle and inferior prefrontal
cortex (blue and green colors). (Right panel) When
an unexpected but important event evokes a
reorienting of attention, both the dorsal regions
and the formerly deactivated ventral regions are
now transiently activated.
1999), by the preparation of a specific response (Astafiev et al.,
2003; Connolly et al., 2002), or by the short-term memory of a
Figureet
2. al.,
Definition
Dorsal and
Ventral
Networks
from Activatio
visual scene (LaBar
1999; of
Pessoa
et al.,
2002).
The dorsal
Data and Putative Interactions
system is also involved
linking
stimuli
to responses,
as in blue a
(Top panel)in
Results
fromrelevant
a meta-analysis
of activation
data. Regions
activated
by central
cues,motor
indicating
where
it is modulated consistently
when people
change
their
plan
fora peripheral
an ob- object w
subsequently appear or what is the feature of an upcoming object. Regions
ject (Rushworthorange
et al.,are2001).
Under
somewhen
conditions,
prepa-to an une
consistently
activated
attention isthe
reoriented
pected
but dorsal
behaviorally
relevant object. network
(Bottom panel)
Model for
ratory activation
of the
frontoparietal
extends
tothe intera
3
tion of dorsal (blue) and ventral (orange) networks during stimulus-driven reo
visual cortex, presumably
reflecting
ienting. Dorsal network
regionsthe
FEF top-down
and IPS send modulation
top-down biases to visu
Attention - Selection & Filtering
Attention: resolves competition between items in environment
can be “top-down” - controlled by goals or plans (volitional)
Neuron
can be “bottom-up” - driven by objects/events in the world
Review
(reactive)
Event Driven
Goal Driven
us while we are considering the meaning of a sentence in the
thesis we are writing, or a monkey may quickly react to the
appearance of a predator while grooming or eating.
Reorienting to new objects may occur reflexively, based on
their high sensory salience (Jonides and Yantis, 1988), particularly when we do not have a specific task to do (Pashler and
Harris, 2001), but distinctive objects attract attention more effectively when they are also behaviorally relevant (Yantis and
Thursday, April 25, 13
Figure 1. Focusing Attention and
Reorienting Attention Recruit Interacting
Networks
(Left panel) Focusing attention on an object
produces sustained activations in dorsal frontoparietal regions in the intraparietal sulcus, superior
parietal lobule, and frontal eye fields, as well as visual regions in occipital cortex (yellow and orange
colors) but sustained deactivations in more ventral
regions in supramarginal gyrus and superior temporal gyrus (TPJ) and middle and inferior prefrontal
cortex (blue and green colors). (Right panel) When
an unexpected but important event evokes a
reorienting of attention, both the dorsal regions
and the formerly deactivated ventral regions are
now transiently activated.
1999), by the preparation of a specific response (Astafiev et al.,
2003; Connolly et al., 2002), or by the short-term memory of a
Figureet
2. al.,
Definition
Dorsal and
Ventral
Networks
from Activatio
visual scene (LaBar
1999; of
Pessoa
et al.,
2002).
The dorsal
Data and Putative Interactions
system is also involved
linking
stimuli
to responses,
as in blue a
(Top panel)in
Results
fromrelevant
a meta-analysis
of activation
data. Regions
activated
by central
cues,motor
indicating
where
it is modulated consistently
when people
change
their
plan
fora peripheral
an ob- object w
subsequently appear or what is the feature of an upcoming object. Regions
ject (Rushworthorange
et al.,are2001).
Under
somewhen
conditions,
prepa-to an une
consistently
activated
attention isthe
reoriented
pected
but dorsal
behaviorally
relevant object. network
(Bottom panel)
Model for
ratory activation
of the
frontoparietal
extends
tothe intera
3
tion of dorsal (blue) and ventral (orange) networks during stimulus-driven reo
visual cortex, presumably
reflecting
ienting. Dorsal network
regionsthe
FEF top-down
and IPS send modulation
top-down biases to visu
Attention - Selection & Filtering
Attention: resolves competition between items in environment
can be “top-down” - controlled by goals or plans (volitional)
Neuron
can be “bottom-up” - driven by objects/events in the world
Review
(reactive)
Event Driven
Goal Driven
us while we are considering the meaning of a sentence in the
thesis we are writing, or a monkey may quickly react to the
appearance of a predator while grooming or eating.
Reorienting to new objects may occur reflexively, based on
their high sensory salience (Jonides and Yantis, 1988), particularly when we do not have a specific task to do (Pashler and
Harris, 2001), but distinctive objects attract attention more effectively when they are also behaviorally relevant (Yantis and
Figure 1. Focusing Attention and
Reorienting Attention Recruit Interacting
Networks
(Left panel) Focusing attention on an object
produces sustained activations in dorsal frontoparietal regions in the intraparietal sulcus, superior
parietal lobule, and frontal eye fields, as well as visual regions in occipital cortex (yellow and orange
colors) but sustained deactivations in more ventral
regions in supramarginal gyrus and superior temporal gyrus (TPJ) and middle and inferior prefrontal
cortex (blue and green colors). (Right panel) When
an unexpected but important event evokes a
reorienting of attention, both the dorsal regions
and the formerly deactivated ventral regions are
now transiently activated.
1999), by the preparation of a specific response (Astafiev et al.,
2003; Connolly et al., 2002), or by the short-term memory of a
Figureet
2. al.,
Definition
Dorsal and
Ventral
Networks
from Activatio
visual scene (LaBar
1999; of
Pessoa
et al.,
2002).
The dorsal
Data and Putative Interactions
system is also involved
linking
stimuli
to responses,
as in blue a
(Top panel)in
Results
fromrelevant
a meta-analysis
of activation
data. Regions
activated
by central
cues,motor
indicating
where
it is modulated consistently
when people
change
their
plan
fora peripheral
an ob- object w
subsequently appear or what is the feature of an upcoming object. Regions
ject (Rushworthorange
et al.,are2001).
Under
somewhen
conditions,
prepa-to an une
consistently
activated
attention isthe
reoriented
pected
but dorsal
behaviorally
relevant object. network
(Bottom panel)
Model for
ratory activation
of the
frontoparietal
extends
tothe intera
3
tion of dorsal (blue) and ventral (orange) networks during stimulus-driven reo
visual cortex, presumably
reflecting
ienting. Dorsal network
regionsthe
FEF top-down
and IPS send modulation
top-down biases to visu
A big question is “What is relevant or salient”?
usually defined in “cold”, objective terms to simplify experiments
but now we are starting to look what changes when things get “hot”
Thursday, April 25, 13
“Cold Cognition: Attention”
One of our experiments
compared top-down (Endo)
and reactive (Exo)
reorienting in TD kids (37) &
those with 22q (46)
Compared attentional
control within each kid &
between the two groups.
Also looked at the effect of
age (7-14)
Shapiro et al. Journal of Neurodevelopmental Disorders 2012, 4:5
http://www.jneurodevdisorders.com/content/4/1/5
RESEARCH
Open Access
A cross-sectional study of the development of
volitional control of spatial attention in children
with chromosome 22q11.2 deletion syndrome
Heather M Shapiro1*, Yukari Takarae2, Danielle J Harvey3, Margarita H Cabaral1 and Tony J Simon1
Abstract
Background: Chromosome 22q11.2 deletion syndrome (22q11.2DS) results from a 1.5- to 3-megabase deletion on
the long arm of chromosome 22 and occurs in approximately 1 in 4000 live births. Previous studies indicate that
children with 22q11.2DS are impaired on tasks involving spatial attention. However, the degree to which these
impairments are due to volitionally generated (endogenous) or reflexive (exogenous) orienting of attention is
unclear. Additionally, the efficacy of these component attention processes throughout child development in
22q11.2DS has yet to be examined.
Methods: Here we compared the performance of a wide age range (7 to 14 years) of children with 22q11.2DS to
typically developing (TD) children on a comprehensive visual cueing paradigm to dissociate the contributions of
endogenous and exogenous attentional impairments. Paired and two-sample t-tests were used to compare
outcome measures within a group or between groups. Additionally, repeated measures regression models were fit
to the data in order to examine effects of age on performance.
Results: We found that children with 22q11.2DS were impaired on a cueing task with an endogenous cue, but not
on the same task with an exogenous cue. Additionally, it was younger children exclusively who were impaired on
endogenous cueing when compared to age-matched TD children. Older children with 22q11.2DS performed
comparably to age-matched TD peers on the endogenous cueing task.
Thursday, April 25, 13
Conclusions: These results suggest that endogenous but not exogenous orienting of attention is selectively
impaired in children with 22q11.2DS. Additionally, the age effect on cueing in children with 22q11.2DS suggests a
possible altered developmental trajectory of endogenous cueing.
formance by age for TD children on endogenous trials
(P = 0.99). Older children with 22q11.2DS performed
comparably to older TD children (P = 0.54) as well as
to younger TD children (P = 0.47) on endogenous trials.
Thus, the group difference in performance on endogenous trials is due exclusively to performance differences
in younger children with 22q11.2DS. Alternative models
using age in years found that an increase of one year of
age was associated with greater improvement in children
with 22q11.2DS than TD children on endogenous trials
(P = 0.004) supporting the results found using a median
split of the ages. In particular, an increase of one year of
Consistent with existing data, both groups had significantly greater response times to invalid relative to valid
trials for endogenous and exogenous cueing conditions
(P < 0.001 for both groups, both conditions) (Figure 2a).
Additionally, the cue cost (response time difference
between invalid minus valid trials) was significantly larger for all children on endogenous relative to exogenous
trials for both groups (P < 0.001) (Figure 2b). Finally,
children with 22q11.2DS had significantly larger cue
cost when compared to TD children on endogenous
(P < 0.001), but not exogenous trials (P = 0.10).
Although children with 22q11.2DS appear to respond
“Cold Cognition: Attention”
Thursday, April 25, 13
b
850
160
TD−Endo
TD−Exo
22q−Endo
22q−Exo
800
Cue Cost (ms)
Adjusted RT (ms)
BUT, kids with 22q do much
worse when they have to
generate the reorienting, “top
down” or volitionally (endo)
a
750
700
650
*
*
*
TD
22q
{
Cue cost is extra time to find
target when cue indicates
wrong location
reactive control (exo) in
kids with 22q is just like TD
120
80
40
600
550
Valid
Invalid
Figure 2 General results of the endogenous-exogenous cueing task.
0
Endo
Exo
“Cold Cognition: Attention”
Cue cost is extra time to find
target when cue indicates
wrong location
reactive control (exo) in
kids with 22q is just like TD
BUT, kids with 22q do much
worse when they have to
generate the reorienting, “top
down” or volitionally (endo)
Thursday, April 25, 13
“Cold Cognition: Attention”
Shapiro et al. Journal of Neurodevelopmental Disorders 2012, 4:5
http://www.jneurodevdisorders.com/content/4/1/5
b
TD (younger)−Endo
TD (older)-Endo
TD (younger)−Exo
TD (older)−Exo
22q (younger)−Endo
22q (older)−Endo
22q (younger)−Exo
22q (older)−Exo
800
200
700
600
*
TD (younger)
TD (older)
22q (younger)
22q (older)
150
100
50
500
400
*
250
Cue Cost (ms)
900
Adjusted RT (ms)
BUT, kids with 22q do much
worse when they have to
generate the reorienting, “top
down” or volitionally (endo)
a
{
Cue cost is extra time to find
target when cue indicates
wrong location
reactive control (exo) in
kids with 22q is just like TD
Page 6 of 12
Valid
Invalid
0
Endo
Exo
Figure 3 Age results of the endogenous-exogenous cueing task.
age in children with 22q11.2DS was associated with a
34.5-unit decrease in cue cost on endogenous trials,
while in TD children the decrease was only 2.5 units. In
contrast to endogenous cueing, children with 22q11.2DS
did not show a change in cue cost as a function of age
on exogenous trials (P = 0.35) (Figure 3b). The same
was true with TD children (P = 0.19). Therefore, these
findings further strengthen the evidence for a different
pattern of endogenous but not exogenous orienting in
children with 22q11.2DS compared to their age-matched
typical counterparts.
produced larger cue cost for spatial cues in the downward location when compared to young TD children (P <
0.001), but this difference was not true for older children
(P = 0.54). On exogenous trials, there were no significant
differences between younger and older children on cue
location for either TD children (P = 0.19) or children
with 22q11.2DS (P = 0.35). Younger children with
22q11.2DS were similar to younger TD children (P =
0.24) for all spatial cue locations on exogenous trials.
Older children with 22q11.2DS also performed comparably to TD children for all cue locations on exogenous
trials (P = 0.27).
HOWEVER, that impairment only seems to exist in our 7-10 yr olds
BUT, first few school grades is a critical age range to be impaired in!
Of course, well-matched “copers” may compensate and do better
Effects of cue location
Thursday, April 25, 13
We next looked at response time to valid and invalid
endogenous cues as a function of the target’s final location (left, right, up, or down, respectively). We directly
compared these response times for targets on the horizontal meridian (appearing to the left or right of fixation)
Effects of SOA
On both endogenous and exogenous trials, children with
22q11.2DS and TD children had faster response times to
targets that appeared at 750 ms SOA relative to 200 ms
(P < 0.005 for both groups, all conditions) (Figure 5a).
“Hot Cognition: Attention”
New tasks manipulate emotional content with different faces to see if
“threat” changes functioning. Dot Probe Threat Bias is affective Exo task
anxious children orient attention to “threat”, losing some control
6
Thursday, April 25, 13
“Hot Cognition: Attention”
New tasks manipulate emotional content with different faces to see if
“threat” changes functioning. Dot Probe Threat Bias is affective Exo task
anxious children orient attention to “threat”, losing some control
500ms
500ms
2500ms
6
Thursday, April 25, 13
Threat, Anxiety and Attention
Results suggest 22q group orient toward to negative affect (threat bias)
this impairs control of attention and increases negative arousal
threat bias thought to increase anxiety risk, correlations suggest this
7
Thursday, April 25, 13
Threat, Anxiety and Attention
Results suggest 22q group orient toward to negative affect (threat bias)
this impairs control of attention and increases negative arousal
threat bias thought to increase anxiety risk, correlations suggest this
7
Thursday, April 25, 13
Threat, Anxiety and Attention
Results suggest 22q group orient toward to negative affect (threat bias)
this impairs control of attention and increases negative arousal
threat bias thought to increase anxiety risk, correlations suggest this
100
MASC Parent:Anxiety Disorders
MASC Parent:Harm Avoidance
100
22q11.2DS (n=17)
TD (n=5)
80
60
40
20
22q11.2DS (n=17)
TD (n=5)
80
60
40
20
−60
−40
−20
0
20
Angry Bias ms
40
60
80
−60
−40
−20
0
20
Angry Bias ms
40
60
80
7
Thursday, April 25, 13
Threat, Anxiety and Attention
Results suggest 22q group orient toward to negative affect (threat bias)
this impairs control of attention and increases negative arousal
threat bias thought to increase anxiety risk, correlations suggest this
7
Thursday, April 25, 13
Threat, Anxiety and Attention
Results suggest 22q group orient toward to negative affect (threat bias)
this impairs control of attention and increases negative arousal
threat bias thought to increase anxiety risk, correlations suggest this
100
MASC Parent:Anxiety Disorders
MASC Parent:Harm Avoidance
100
22q11.2DS (n=17)
TD (n=5)
80
60
40
20
22q11.2DS (n=17)
TD (n=5)
80
60
40
20
−150
−100
−50
0
Happy Bias ms
50
100
150
−150
−100
−50
0
Happy Bias ms
50
100
150
7
Thursday, April 25, 13
Threat, Anxiety and Attention
Recall that reactive Exo control was not impaired in 22q across ages
trends suggest a stronger threat/anxiety link in younger kids for angry
trends also suggest more anxious older kids avoid happy faces more
90
90
22q11.2DS Older (n=7)
MASC Parent:Anxiety Disorders
MASC Parent:Anxiety Disorders
22q11.2DS Younger (n=10)
80
70
80
70
z
60
50
40
60
50
40
−60
−40
−20
0
20
Angry Bias ms
40
60
80
−30
−20
−10
0
10
Angry Bias ms
20
30
8
Thursday, April 25, 13
Threat, Anxiety and Attention
Recall that reactive Exo control was not impaired in 22q across ages
trends suggest a stronger threat/anxiety link in younger kids for angry
trends also suggest more anxious older kids avoid happy faces more
z
8
Thursday, April 25, 13
Threat, Anxiety and Attention
Recall that reactive Exo control was not impaired in 22q across ages
trends suggest a stronger threat/anxiety link in younger kids for angry
trends also suggest more anxious older kids avoid happy faces more
80
80
22q11.2DS Older (n=7)
MASC Parent: Harm Avoidance
MASC Parent: Harm Avoidance
22q11.2DS Younger (n=10)
70
60
70
60
z
50
40
30
−100 −80
50
40
30
−60
−40
−20
0
20
Angry Bias ms
40
60
80
100
−30
−20
−10
0
10
Angry Bias ms
20
30
8
Thursday, April 25, 13
Threat, Anxiety and Attention
Recall that reactive Exo control was not impaired in 22q across ages
trends suggest a stronger threat/anxiety link in younger kids for angry
trends also suggest more anxious older kids avoid happy faces more
z
8
Thursday, April 25, 13
Threat, Anxiety and Attention
Recall that reactive Exo control was not impaired in 22q across ages
trends suggest a stronger threat/anxiety link in younger kids for angry
trends also suggest more anxious older kids avoid happy faces more
90
90
22q11.2DS Older (n=7)
80
70
60
z
50
40
30
MASC Parent: Anxiety Disorder
MASC Parent: Anxiety Disorder
22q11.2DS Younger (n=10)
80
70
60
50
40
30
−100 −80
−60
−40 −20
0
20
Happy Bias ms
40
60
80
−150
−100
−50
0
Happy Bias ms
50
100
150
8
Thursday, April 25, 13
Threat, Anxiety and Attention
Recall that reactive Exo control was not impaired in 22q across ages
trends suggest a stronger threat/anxiety link in younger kids for angry
trends also suggest more anxious older kids avoid happy faces more
z
8
Thursday, April 25, 13
Threat, Anxiety and Attention
Recall that reactive Exo control was not impaired in 22q across ages
trends suggest a stronger threat/anxiety link in younger kids for angry
trends also suggest more anxious older kids avoid happy faces more
90
90
22q11.2DS Younger (n=10)
22q11.2DS Older (n=7)
80
70
60
z
50
40
MASC Parent:Harm Avoidance
MASC Parent:Harm Avoidance
80
70
60
50
40
30
30
20
20
−100 −80
−60
−40 −20
0
20
Happy Bias ms
40
60
80
−150
−100
−50
0
Happy Bias ms
50
100
150
8
Thursday, April 25, 13
Threat, Anxiety and Attention
What does this actually look like? How “distracting” is threat?
Movie #1 a typical child with no threat bias
Movie #2 a child with 22q with a strong threat (i.e. angry face) bias
9
Thursday, April 25, 13
Threat, Anxiety and Attention
What does this actually look like? How “distracting” is threat?
Movie #1 a typical child with no threat bias
Movie #2 a child with 22q with a strong threat (i.e. angry face) bias
9
Thursday, April 25, 13
Threat, Anxiety and Attention
What does this actually look like? How “distracting” is threat?
Movie #1 a typical child with no threat bias
Movie #2 a child with 22q with a strong threat (i.e. angry face) bias
9
Thursday, April 25, 13
“Cold Cognition: Cognitive Control”
Tests ability to withhold inappropriate responses
“Go” trials (75%): press a button as quickly as possible to
“whack” the mole
“No-Go” trials (25%): do NOT press button to avoid
“squashing” the vegetable
Preceded by 1, 3, or 5 “Go” trials
5
3
1
10
Thursday, April 25, 13
“Cold Cognition: Cognitive Control”
90
correct hit
correct
withholding
3
60
70
60
50
60
1
40
40
50
20
30
40
20
0
30
10
20
0
10
100
0
80
60
40
20
0
Thursday, April 25, 13
5
80
No-Go Accuracy (%)
Accuracy
Accuracy
(%)(%)
Go Accuracy (%)
80
100
90
70
80
TD
22q
TD
22q
Overall
Younger
Older
Overall
Younger
Older
correct
withholding
60
70
60
50
60
40
40
50
20
30
40
20
0
30
10
20
0
80
60
40
20
0
Thursday, April 25, 13
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)
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)
“Cold Cognition: Cognitive Control”
350
250
150
50
−50
−150
8
correct
withholding
40
40
50
20
30
40
20
0
30
10
20
0
80
60
40
20
0
Thursday, April 25, 13
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)
60
70
60
50
60
Response Time (ms)
80
0
10
100
100
Go Accuracy (%)
correct hit
No-Go Accuracy (%)
Accuracy
Accuracy
(%)(%)
Go Accuracy (%)
80
100
90
70
80
22q
TD
No-Go Accuracy (%)
90
TD
22q
TD
22q
RT Difference (ms)
(post-error minus post-correct)
“Cold Cognition: Cognitive Control”
350
250
150
50
−50
−150
8
correct
withholding
40
40
50
20
30
40
20
0
30
10
20
0
80
60
40
20
0
Thursday, April 25, 13
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)
60
70
60
50
60
Response Time (ms)
80
0
10
100
100
Go Accuracy (%)
correct hit
No-Go Accuracy (%)
Accuracy
Accuracy
(%)(%)
Go Accuracy (%)
80
100
90
70
80
22q
TD
No-Go Accuracy (%)
90
TD
22q
TD
22q
RT Difference (ms)
(post-error minus post-correct)
“Cold Cognition: Cognitive Control”
1
3
5
No-Go Trial Type
(# Preceding Go Trials)
8
“Hot Cognition: Cognitive Control”
Whacking moles & protecting vegetables is all very well but .....
What happens when what you want to do really COUNTS?
12
Thursday, April 25, 13
“Hot Cognition: Cognitive Control”
Whacking moles & protecting vegetables is all very well but .....
What happens when what you want to do really COUNTS?
12
Thursday, April 25, 13
“Hot Cognition: Cognitive Control”
Whacking moles & protecting vegetables is all very well but .....
What happens when what you want to do really COUNTS?
Whoa, that was stressfull! And it was about something that feels good
What happens if you have to control yourself when things feel bad?
Thursday, April 25, 13
12
“Hot Cognition: Cognitive Control”
Tests ability to withhold inappropriate responses
“Go” trials (75%): press a button as quickly as possible to
“whack” the mole
“No-Go” trials (25%): do NOT press button to avoid
“squashing” the vegetable
Preceded by 1, 3, or 5 “Go” trials
13
Thursday, April 25, 13
“Hot Cognition: Cognitive Control”
Tests ability to withhold inappropriate responses
“Go” trials (75%): press a button as quickly as possible to
“whack” the mole
“No-Go” trials (25%): do NOT press button to avoid
“squashing” the vegetable
Preceded by 1, 3, or 5 “Go” trials
13
Thursday, April 25, 13
“Hot Cognition: Cognitive Control”
Tests ability to withhold inappropriate responses
“Go” trials (75%): press a button as quickly as possible to
“whack” the mole
“No-Go” trials (25%): do NOT press button to avoid
“squashing” the vegetable
Preceded by 1, 3, or 5 “Go” trials
13
Thursday, April 25, 13
“Hot Cognition: Cognitive Control”
Tests ability to withhold inappropriate responses
“Go” trials (75%): press a button as quickly as possible to
“whack” the mole
“No-Go” trials (25%): do NOT press button to avoid
“squashing” the vegetable
Preceded by 1, 3, or 5 “Go” trials
5
3
1
13
Thursday, April 25, 13
“Hot Cognition: Cognitive Control”
correct
withholding
No-Go Accuracy (%)
Original “Cold
22q11.2DS
Cognition” Data
TD
These two tasks both
require “retroactive
<-control” ->
90
80
*
70
60
1
3
5
No-Go Trial Type
(# Preceding Go Trials)
This is one requires
prospective control
modulated by affect
Thursday, April 25, 13
“Hot Cognition: Cognitive Control”
correct
withholding
No-Go Accuracy (%)
Original “Cold
22q11.2DS
Cognition” Data
TD
These two tasks both
require “retroactive
<-control” ->
90
80
*
70
60
1
3
5
No-Go Trial Type
(# Preceding Go Trials)
Kids see
1-5 neutral
Go faces
Correct No
Go to
Happy or
Angry face
Very Preliminary
data from just 7
kids with 22q
Kids see
1-5 Happy
or Angry
faces
Correct No
Go to
This is one requires
Neutral
prospective control
modulated
by affect
face
Thursday, April 25, 13
“Hot Cognition: Cognitive Control”
correct
withholding
No-Go Accuracy (%)
Original “Cold
22q11.2DS
Cognition” Data
TD
These two tasks both
require “retroactive
<-control” ->
90
80
*
70
60
1
3
5
No-Go Trial Type
(# Preceding Go Trials)
Kids see
1-5 neutral
Go faces
Correct No
Go to
Happy or
Angry face
Very Preliminary
data from just 7
kids with 22q
Kids see
1-5 Happy
or Angry
faces
Correct No
Go to
This is one requires
Neutral
prospective control
modulated
by affect
face
Thursday, April 25, 13
This pattern
does not
seems to be
related to
anxiety, yet!
“Hot Cognition: Cognitive Control”
correct
withholding
No-Go Accuracy (%)
Original “Cold
22q11.2DS
Cognition” Data
TD
These two tasks both
require “retroactive
<-control” ->
90
80
*
70
60
1
3
5
No-Go Trial Type
(# Preceding Go Trials)
Kids see
1-5 neutral
Go faces
Correct No
Go to
Happy or
Angry face
Very Preliminary
data from just 7
kids with 22q
Kids see
1-5 Happy
or Angry
faces
Correct No
Go to
This is one requires
Neutral
prospective control
modulated
by affect
face
Thursday, April 25, 13
This pattern
does not
seems to be
related to
anxiety, yet!
This pattern
seems to be
only in the
anxious kids
Arousal, Anxiety & Inattention
Color Key
ADHD and Anxiety
0.5
1
1.5
Value
2
Anxiety
Michelle Y Deng, Ph.D.
Thursday, April 25, 13
ADHD
ANXIETY
14
13
30
34
35
40
41
44
46
48
49
50
52
59
51
47
53
56
26
16
37
6
5
33
15
8
19
22
58
2
1
12
24
42
43
54
10
9
11
23
29
36
38
45
57
4
3
7
18
20
21
27
28
31
32
39
55
ADHD
22q11.2DS participants
0
Arousal, Anxiety & Inattention
Color Key
ADHD and Anxiety
0.5
1
1.5
Value
2
Anxiety
Michelle Y Deng, Ph.D.
Thursday, April 25, 13
ADHD
ANXIETY
Neither
ADHD
14
13
30
34
35
40
41
44
46
48
49
50
52
59
51
47
53
56
26
16
37
6
5
33
15
8
19
22
58
2
1
12
24
42
43
54
10
9
11
23
29
36
38
45
57
4
3
7
18
20
21
27
28
31
32
39
55
22q11.2DS participants
0
Arousal, Anxiety & Inattention
Color Key
ADHD and Anxiety
0.5
1
1.5
Value
2
Anxiety
Anxiety
Michelle Y Deng, Ph.D.
Thursday, April 25, 13
ADHD
ANXIETY
Neither
ADHD
14
13
30
34
35
40
41
44
46
48
49
50
52
59
51
47
53
56
26
16
37
6
5
33
15
8
19
22
58
2
1
12
24
42
43
54
10
9
11
23
29
36
38
45
57
4
3
7
18
20
21
27
28
31
32
39
55
22q11.2DS participants
0
Arousal, Anxiety & Inattention
Color Key
ADHD and Anxiety
0.5
1
1.5
Value
2
ADHD
Anxiety
Anxiety
Michelle Y Deng, Ph.D.
Thursday, April 25, 13
ADHD
ANXIETY
Neither
ADHD
14
13
30
34
35
40
41
44
46
48
49
50
52
59
51
47
53
56
26
16
37
6
5
33
15
8
19
22
58
2
1
12
24
42
43
54
10
9
11
23
29
36
38
45
57
4
3
7
18
20
21
27
28
31
32
39
55
22q11.2DS participants
0
Arousal, Anxiety & Inattention
Color Key
ADHD and Anxiety
0.5
1
1.5
Value
2
Anxiety+ADHD
ADHD
Anxiety
Anxiety
Michelle Y Deng, Ph.D.
Thursday, April 25, 13
ADHD
ANXIETY
Neither
ADHD
14
13
30
34
35
40
41
44
46
48
49
50
52
59
51
47
53
56
26
16
37
6
5
33
15
8
19
22
58
2
1
12
24
42
43
54
10
9
11
23
29
36
38
45
57
4
3
7
18
20
21
27
28
31
32
39
55
22q11.2DS participants
0
Arousal, Anxiety & Inattention
Color Key
Anxiety and ADHD (Venn-Euler Diagram)
ADHD and Anxiety
0.5
1
1.5
Value
2
Anxiety
Anxiety
Michelle Y Deng, Ph.D.
Thursday, April 25, 13
ADHD
ANXIETY
Neither
ADHD
ADHD
0.4
ANXIETY
0.2
ADHD
22q11.2DS participants
Anxiety+ADHD
14
13
30
34
35
40
41
44
46
48
49
50
52
59
51
47
53
56
26
16
37
6
5
33
15
8
19
22
58
2
1
12
24
42
43
54
10
9
11
23
29
36
38
45
57
4
3
7
18
20
21
27
28
31
32
39
55
0.6
0.8
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
What Have We Learned?
16
Thursday, April 25, 13
What Have We Learned?
Key cognitive functions develop differently in 22q across childhood
16
Thursday, April 25, 13
What Have We Learned?
Key cognitive functions develop differently in 22q across childhood
what information to process depends on its salience/importance
16
Thursday, April 25, 13
What Have We Learned?
Key cognitive functions develop differently in 22q across childhood
what information to process depends on its salience/importance
BUT, that varies enormously between children and circumstances
16
Thursday, April 25, 13
What Have We Learned?
Key cognitive functions develop differently in 22q across childhood
what information to process depends on its salience/importance
BUT, that varies enormously between children and circumstances
“copers” probably avoid threat, keep control and learn better
16
Thursday, April 25, 13
What Have We Learned?
Key cognitive functions develop differently in 22q across childhood
what information to process depends on its salience/importance
BUT, that varies enormously between children and circumstances
“copers” probably avoid threat, keep control and learn better
“strugglers” likely lose control as arousal increases threat
bi-directional relationship between cognitive ability and anxiety
doing better (coping) reduces anxiety & competence improves
doing worse (struggling) compromises competence and increases anxiety
16
Thursday, April 25, 13
What Have We Learned?
Key cognitive functions develop differently in 22q across childhood
what information to process depends on its salience/importance
BUT, that varies enormously between children and circumstances
“copers” probably avoid threat, keep control and learn better
“strugglers” likely lose control as arousal increases threat
bi-directional relationship between cognitive ability and anxiety
doing better (coping) reduces anxiety & competence improves
doing worse (struggling) compromises competence and increases anxiety
Shorter term implications
quality of life, social competence, academic progress, family dynamics
16
Thursday, April 25, 13
What Have We Learned?
Key cognitive functions develop differently in 22q across childhood
what information to process depends on its salience/importance
BUT, that varies enormously between children and circumstances
“copers” probably avoid threat, keep control and learn better
“strugglers” likely lose control as arousal increases threat
bi-directional relationship between cognitive ability and anxiety
doing better (coping) reduces anxiety & competence improves
doing worse (struggling) compromises competence and increases anxiety
Shorter term implications
quality of life, social competence, academic progress, family dynamics
Longer term implications
independence, employment, relationships, mental health
16
Thursday, April 25, 13
What Have We Learned?
Key cognitive functions develop differently in 22q across childhood
what information to process depends on its salience/importance
BUT, that varies enormously between children and circumstances
“copers” probably avoid threat, keep control and learn better
“strugglers” likely lose control as arousal increases threat
bi-directional relationship between cognitive ability and anxiety
doing better (coping) reduces anxiety & competence improves
doing worse (struggling) compromises competence and increases anxiety
Shorter term implications
quality of life, social competence, academic progress, family dynamics
Longer term implications
independence, employment, relationships, mental health
16
Thursday, April 25, 13
What Have We Learned?
Key cognitive functions develop differently in 22q across childhood
what information to process depends on its salience/importance
BUT, that varies enormously between children and circumstances
“copers” probably avoid threat, keep control and learn better
“strugglers” likely lose control as arousal increases threat
bi-directional relationship between cognitive ability and anxiety
doing better (coping) reduces anxiety & competence improves
doing worse (struggling) compromises competence and increases anxiety
Shorter term implications
quality of life, social competence, academic progress, family dynamics
Longer term implications
independence, employment, relationships, mental health
What can you do? - try to improve “calibration” and use evidence based therapies
Thursday, April 25, 13
16
Cognitive
Abilities
Thursday, April 25, 13
Everyday
Demands
Cognitive
Abilities
Thursday, April 25, 13
Everyday
Demands
Cognitive
Abilities
Coping
Resources
Thursday, April 25, 13
Everyday
Demands
Cognitive
Abilities
Coping
Resources
Thursday, April 25, 13
Everyday
Demands
Cognitive
Abilities
Stimulation
Thursday, April 25, 13
Coping
Resources
Thanks
MOST important: Kids who participated & their families!!
Majority of the work presented here was done by:
Josh Cruz, Nina Cung, Margie Cabaral, Freddy Bassal, Heather
Shapiro, Ling Wong, Elliott Beaton Ph.D., Siddarth Srivastava Ph.D.,
Michelle Deng Ph.D., Joel Stoddard, M.D., Danielle Harvey, Ph.D.,
Naomi Hunsaker, Ph.D., Kathy Angkustsiri M.D., Nicole Tartaglia
M.D., Ingrid Leckliter Ph.D., Janice Enriquez Ph.D.
With important contributions from:
Tracy Riggins Ph.D.,Yukari Takarae Ph.D., Mendoza M.A., Leeza
Kondos & others
UC Davis Center of Excellence in Developmental Disabilities
Thursday, April 25, 13