Behavioral Restriction Determines Left Attentional Bias: Preliminary Evidences From COVID-19 Lockdown

Abstract

During the COVID-19 lockdown, individuals were forced to remain at home, hence severely limiting the interaction within environmental stimuli, reducing the cognitive load placed on spatial competences. The effects of the behavioral restriction on cognition have been little examined. The present study is aimed at analyzing the effects of lockdown on executive function prominently involved in adapting behavior to new environmental demands. We analyze non-verbal fluency abilities, as indirectly providing a measure of cognitive flexibility to react to spatial changes. Sixteen students (mean age 20.75; SD 1.34), evaluated before the start of the lockdown (T1) in a battery of psychological tasks exploring different cognitive domains, have been reassessed during lockdown (T2). The assessment included the modified Five-Point Test (m-FPT) to analyze non-verbal fluency abilities. At T2, the students were also administered the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20). The restriction of behaviors following a lockdown determines increased non-verbal fluency, evidenced by the significant increase of the number of new drawings. We found worsened verbal span, while phonemic verbal fluency remained unchanged. Interestingly, we observed a significant tendency to use the left part of each box in the m-FPT correlated with TAS-20 and with the subscales that assess difficulty in describing and identifying feelings. Although our data were collected from a small sample, they evidence that the restriction of behaviors determines a leftward bias, suggesting a greater activation of the right hemisphere, intrinsically connected with the processing of non-verbal information and with the need to manage an emotional situation.

Keywords: attention; cognition; coronavirus; executive function; pandemic; quarantine.

Figure 1

Examples of possible executions of the m-FPT. (A) Examples of the two solutions provided by the experimenter to illustrate how to perform the task. (B) strategies of addition or (C) subtraction elements. (D) Strategies of rotation of the patterns produced. (E) Examples of possible incorrect patterns.

Figure 2

Comparison between the periods before the COVID-19 lockdown (T1) and during the COVID-19 lockdown (T2) in m-FPT. (A) Significant difference in total drawings parameter (P = 0.024): the participants produced more drawings during the quarantine. (B) No significant difference in the error index (P = 0.33), indicating that the percentage between the violations of the rule and the repeated drawings does not vary between the two phases. (C) No significant differences in the strategy index (P = 0.78): the result indicates that there are no changes in the increase of drawings with strategies. Vertical bars indicate SD.

Figure 3

Differences in mean percentage of dots on the left, right, and middle of the boxes between the period before the COVID-19 lockdown (T1) and during the COVID-19 lockdown (T2). There is a significant difference only for the percentage of dots on the left the boxes forming the drawings (P = 0.01). Vertical bars indicate SD. In the lower part of the figure, there is a schematic representation of the division of the box into the left, middle, and right.

Figure 4

Correlation (Spearman rho) between and the tendency of the m-FPT to shift to the left side at T2 and the TAS-20. On the left side is shown the correlation between the difficulty to identify and describe feelings, as well as externally oriented thinking, and the increment of dots touched on the left at T2. On the right side of the figure is shown the correlations between the different TAS-20 subscales and bias to the left in T2.