“HOT” AND “COLD” EXECUTIVE

FUNCTIONMatthew Winchester

Frontiers of Science Institute 2011

Mentor: Marilyn Welsh, Ph.D.

Sponsor: Newmont Mining

http://mybrainnotes.com

Executive Function

Prefrontal cortex Problem solving, working memory,

inhibitory control, planning, etc. Dorsolateral, orbitofrontal, frontopolar

regions

http://northernutahhypnosis.com

“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

“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

Procedure

10 FSI students tested 3 tasks given…

Iowa Gambling Task (IGT)Letter-Number Sequencing (LNS)Tower of London (TOL)

…under 2 settingsNon-incentive conditionsIncentive conditions (for 25$ gift card)

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

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

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 conditionhttp://heart.bmj.com

HypothesesResearch Question: How will the incentive manipulation

influence the performance (number correct) on the TOL and LNS tasks?

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.

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.

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.

Statistical Analysis

SPSS PASW Statistics Paired sample t-test Correlational Analysis

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

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.

r (8) = 0.268, p = 0.227

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

r (8) = -0.744, p = 0.007

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

r (8) = -0.536, p = 0.055

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

r (8) = 0.776, p = 0.004

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

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)

Discussion (Research Q cont.) Incentive has different effects on

different individuals Increase attention/motivation? Increase stress/anxiety?

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?

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

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

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

Future Studies

Much more to study! Limitations…

ParticipantsTrialsTasks

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 Kirkley and Zabedah Saad 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!

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).

Any Questions?