“Hot” and “Cold” executive Function

1. Matthew Winchester Frontiers of Science Institute 2011 Mentor: Marilyn Welsh, Ph.D. Sponsor: Newmont Mining “Hot” and “Cold” executive Function http://mybrainnotes.com

2. Executive Function • Prefrontal cortex • Problem solving, working memory, inhibitory control, planning, etc. • Dorsolateral, orbitofrontal, frontopolar regions http://northernutahhypnosis.com

3. “Hot” Executive Function • Orbitofronal region • Emotional/Motivated decisions • Ex. Peer pressure • Develops later in life (late teen years) • Tested by Iowa Gambling Task http://holygoldfish.glogster.com http://pathfinderscareerdesign.com

4. “Cold” Executive Function • Dorsolateral Region • Purely cognitive executive function • Starts developing early (5-6) • Tested by Letter-Number Sequencing and Tower of London http://www.premier-outlook.com

5. Procedure • 10 FSI students tested • 3 tasks given… • Iowa Gambling Task (IGT) • Letter-Number Sequencing (LNS) • Tower of London (TOL) • …under 2 settings • Non-incentive conditions • Incentive conditions (for 25$ gift card)

6. Iowa Gambling Task • Measures “hot” executive function • Participants select cards from 4 decks, winning or losing money each time • 2 “good” decks, 2 “bad” decks • Scores based on good choices – bad ones • 5 blocks of 20 trials each http://en.wikipedia.org

7. Letter-Number Sequencing • Measures “cold” executive function • Participants read random sequence of letters and numbers, and asked to repeat with numbers first in ascending order (1, 2, 3) and then letters in alphabetical order (a, b, c) • 14 trials given, 7 under each condition • Ex: • T-7-F-3 = 3-7-F-T

8. Tower of London • Measures “cold” executive function • Participants shown 3 balls on 3 pegs, must move from starting position to goal position in certain # of moves • 30 trials given, 15 under each condition http://heart.bmj.com

9. Hypotheses Research Question: How will the incentive manipulation influence the performance (number correct) on the TOL and LNS tasks? • The scores on the TOL and LNS tasks given under non-incentive conditions will be moderately correlated with each other because they are both considered to be “cold” EF tasks. • The scores on the TOL and LNS tasks given under non-incentive conditions will be correlated with the “hot” EF task, IGT, at a low magnitude. • The scores on the TOL and LNS tasks given under incentive conditions will be correlated with the “hot” EF task, IGT, at a moderate to high magnitude.

10. Statistical Analysis • SPSS PASW Statistics • Paired sample t-test • Correlational Analysis

11. Results (Research Q) Research Question: How will the incentive manipulation influence the performance (number correct) on the TOL and LNS tasks? • The paired sample t-test showed no significant differences in performance on the TOL or LNS under both conditions

12. Results (H.1) • The scores on the TOL and LNS tasks given under non-incentive conditions will be moderately correlated with each other because they are both considered to be “cold” EF tasks.

13. r (8) = 0.268, p = 0.227

14. Results (H.2) • The scores on the TOL and LNS tasks given under non-incentive conditions will be correlated with the “hot” EF task, IGT, at a low magnitude. • Non-significant correlation for TOL vs. IGT… • …except for Block 1 r (8) = -0.744, p = 0.007

15. r (8) = -0.744, p = 0.007

16. Results (H.2 cont.) • Low, negative correlation for LNS vs. IGT… • … except for Block 1 r (8) = -0.536, p = 0.055

17. r (8) = -0.536, p = 0.055

18. Results (H.3) • The scores on the TOL and LNS tasks given under incentive conditions will be correlated with the “hot” EF task, IGT, at a moderate to high magnitude. • Significant positive correlation for TOL vs. IGT • Block 2: r(8) = 0.598, p = 0.034 • Block 3: r(8) = 0.726, p = 0.009 • Block 4: r(8) = 0.725, p = 0.009 • Block 5: r(8) = 0.633, p = 0.025 • Net: r(8) = 0.776, p = 0.004

19. r (8) = 0.776, p = 0.004

20. Results (H.3 cont.) • No significant correlation for LNS vs. IGT

21. Discussion (Research Q) • No differences in performance on TOL or LNS • TOL: Increase in motivation (closer correlation), not performance • LNS: Increase in motivation? (insignificant correlation)

22. Discussion (Research Q cont.) • Incentive has different effects on different individuals • Increase attention/motivation? • Increase stress/anxiety?

23. Discussion (H.1) • The scores on the TOL and LNS tasks given under non-incentive conditions will be moderately correlated with each other because they are both considered to be “cold” EF tasks. • No correlation… • More tests/participants?

24. Discussion (H.2) • The scores on the TOL and LNS tasks given under non-incentive conditions will be correlated with the “hot” EF task, IGT, at a low magnitude. • Non-significant correlation for TOL vs. IGT… • …except for Block 1 • Low, negative correlation for LNS vs. IGT… • … except for Block 1

25. Discussion (H.3) • The scores on the TOL and LNS tasks given under incentive conditions will be correlated with the “hot” EF task, IGT, at a moderate to high magnitude. • Significant positive correlation for TOL vs. IGT • Block 2: r (8) = 0.598, p = 0.034 • Block 3: r (8) = 0.726, p = 0.009 • Block 4: r (8) = 0.725, p = 0.009 • Block 5: r (8) = 0.633, p = 0.025 • Net: r (8) = 0.776, p = 0.004 • Insignificant for LNS

26. Significance • H.3 supported by data, TOL under incentive correlates with IGT • “Cold” and “Hot” EF on a single continuum/spectrum? • Relationship/connection between the two? • More research necessary

27. Future Studies • Much more to study! • Limitations… • Participants • Trials • Tasks

28. Acknowledgements • Thanks to Dr. Welsh, who has been a tremendous help with this project, and the best mentor I could ask for. • Thanks to Nathan Kirkleyand ZabedahSaad for their editing and insight on this presentation. • Thanks to Lori Ball, and the rest of the FSI staff. You guys are awesome and its been a great summer!!! • Thanks to Newmont Mining for sponsoring me to participate in such a great program!

29. References • Baddeley, A. (2010, February 23). Working memory. Current Biology, 20(4). • Best, J. R., & Miller, P. H. (2010, November/‌December). A Developmental Perspective on Executive Function. Child Development, 81(6). • Brock, L. L., Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., Nathanson, L., & Grimm, K. J. (2009). The contributions of ‘hot’ and ‘cool’ executive funtion to children’s academic achievement, learning-related behaviors, and engagement in kindergarten. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, (24). • Carlson, S. M., & Moses, L. J. (2001, July/‌August). Individual Differences in Inhibitory Control and Children’s Theory of Mind. Child Development, 72(4). • Crone, E. A. (2009). Executive functions in adolescence: inferences from brain and behavior. Developmental Science. • Gilbert, S. J., & Burgess, P. W. (2008, February 12). Executive function. Current Biology, 18(3). • Hongwanishkul, D., Happaney, K. R., Lee, W. S. C., & Zelazo, P. D. (2010, June 8). Assessment of Hot and Cool Executive Function in Young Children: Age-Related Changes and Individual Differences. Developmental Neuropsychology, 28(2). • Kerr, A., & Zelazo, P. D. (2004, June). Development of “hot” executive function: The children’s gambling task. Brain and Cognition, 55(1). • Prencipe, A., Kesek, A., Cohen, J., Lamm, C., Lewis, M. D., & Zelazo, P. D. (2011). Development of hot and cool executive function during the transition to adolescence. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, (108). • Russo, N. (2003). Executive function and autism (Doctoral dissertation, McGill University, Montreal). Retrieved from ProQuest database. • Seguin, J. R., Arseneault, L., & Tremblay, R. E. (2007). The contribution of “cool” and “hot” components of decision-making in adolescence: Implications for developmental psychopathology. Cognitive Development, (22).

30. Any Questions?