Proactive control in early and middle childhood: An ERP study

Abstract

Children experience important cognitive control improvements in the transition to school. This study examined 4-5-year-olds' (n=17) and 7-8-year-olds' (n=22) ability to proactively deploy cognitive control. Children performed a cued task-switching paradigm presenting them with a cue indicating which attribute, color or shape, they should use to sort the upcoming stimulus. Following both cue and stimulus, we analyzed two event-related potentials: the P2 and P3, positive peaks reflecting sensory and attentional components of cognitive control, respectively. Following the cue, we also analyzed a positive slow-wave, indexing working memory engagement. We predicted that on switch trials, which required switching tasks, proactive control would result in larger cue-P3 amplitudes, reflecting recognition of the need to switch, and larger slow-wave amplitudes, reflecting maintenance of the new task-sets over the post-cue delay. This pattern was observed in both age groups. At the stimulus, in switch trials, both age groups had shorter stimulus-P2 latencies, consistent with processing facilitation. These results suggest that both 4-5- and 7-8-year-olds engaged cognitive control proactively. Older children, however, demonstrated better performance and larger cue-P2 amplitudes, suggesting more effective proactive control engagement in middle childhood.

Keywords: Child development; Cognitive control; Event-related potentials.

Fig. 1

Schematic depicting a correct shape trial (A) and an incorrect color trial (B). i) Ready screen, terminates when participants press and hold the left-most and right-most buttons on a four-button response pad. ii) A short delay. iii) Task cue and response options. iv) Cue-stimulus interval. v) Stimulus. vi) Visual and auditory feedback contingent on response accuracy.

Fig. 2

The electrode montage for the EGI 129 channel HydroCel Geodesic sensor net with the electrode clusters used in this study. A) Left frontocentral electrode cluster. B) Right frontocentral electrode cluster. C) Midline central electrode cluster. D) Left parietocentral electrode cluster. E) Right parietocentral electrode cluster. F) Midline parietocentral electrode cluster. G) Midline parietal electrode cluster.

Fig. 3

Cue-evoked ERPs by electrode site, age group and switch condition. FCL: left frontocentral. FCR: right frontocentral. Cz: midline central. PCL: left parietocentral. PCR: right parietocentral. PCz: midline parietocentral. Pz: midline parietal.

Fig. 4

Cue-P3 amplitude at posterior electrode clusters, by age group and switch condition. PCL: left parietocentral. PCR: right parietocentral. PCz: midline parietocentral. Pz: midline parietal. Main effect of switch condition is significant at all electrode sites.

Fig. 5

Stimulus-evoked ERPs by electrode site, age group and switch condition. FCL: left frontocentral. FCR: right frontocentral. Cz: midline central. PCL: left parietocentral. PCR: right parietocentral. PCz: midline parietocentral. Pz: midline parietal.