Goal neglect, fluid intelligence and processing speed:Manipulating instruction load and inter-stimulus interval

Goal maintenance is the process where task rules and instructions are kept active to exert their control on behavior. When this process fails, an individual may ignore a rule while performing the task, despite being able to describe it after task completion. Previous research has suggested that the goal maintenance system is limited by the number of concurrent rules which can be maintained during a task, and that this limit is dependent on an individual's level of fluid intelligence. However, the speed at which an individual can process information may also limit their ability to use task rules when the task demands them. In the present study, four experiments manipulated the number of instructions to be maintained by younger and older adults and examined whether performance on a rapid letter-monitoring task was predicted by individual differences in fluid intelligence or processing speed. Fluid intelligence played little role in determining how frequently rules were ignored during the task, regardless of the number of rules to be maintained. In contrast, processing speed predicted the rate of goal neglect in older adults, where increasing the presentation rate of the letter-monitoring task increased goal neglect. These findings suggest that goal maintenance may be limited by the speed at which it can operate

Intelligence and all-cause mortality in the 6-Day Sample of the Scottish Mental Survey 1947 and their siblings:Testing the contribution of family background

Background: Higher early-life intelligence is associated with a reduced risk of mortality in adulthood, though this association is apparently hardly attenuated when accounting for early-life socio-economic status (SES). However, the use of proxy measures of SES means that residual confounding may underestimate this attenuation. In the present study, the potential confounding effect of early-life SES was instead accounted for by examining the intelligence–mortality association within families. Methods: The association between early-life intelligence and mortality in adulthood was assessed in 727 members of the 6-Day Sample of the Scottish Mental Survey 1947 and, for the first time, 1580 of their younger siblings. These individuals were born between 1936 and 1958, and were followed up into later life, with deaths recorded up to 2015. Cox regression was used to estimate the relative risk of mortality associated with higher IQ scores after adjusting for shared family factors. Results: A standard-deviation advantage in IQ score was associated with a significantly reduced mortality risk [hazard ratio = 0.76, p < 0.001, 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.68–0.84)]. This reduction in hazard was only slightly attenuated by adjusting for sex and shared family factors [hazard ratio = 0.79, p = 0.002, 95% CI (0.68–0.92)]. Conclusions: Although somewhat conservative, adjusting for all variance shared by a family avoids any potential residual confounding of the intelligence–mortality association arising from the use of proxy measures of early-life SES. The present study demonstrates that the longevity associated with higher early-life intelligence cannot be explained by early-life SES or within-family factors

Using a knowledge exchange event to assess study participants’ attitudes to research in a rapidly evolving research context

Grant information: DJP, IJD and AMM are supported by Wellcome Trust Grant 104036. IJD, DJP, JPB and AMM, IB, EJK and SFW are supported by MRC Mental Health Data Pathfinder Grant MC_PC_17209. AMM and SML are supported by MRC Grant MC_PC_MR/R01910X/1. AMM is supported by MRC Grant MR/S035818/1. Theirworld Edinburgh Birth Cohort is funded by the charity Theirworld (www.theirworld.org), and is undertaken in the MRC Centre for Reproductive Health, which is funded by MRC Centre Grant (G1002033). CB and DJP are supported by Health Data Research UK, an initiative funded by UK Research and Innovation, Department of Health and Social Care (England) and the devolved administrations, and leading medical research charities.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

COVID-19: Third dose booster vaccine effectiveness against breakthrough coronavirus infection, hospitalisations and death in patients with cancer: A population-based study

Purpose: People living with cancer and haematological malignancies are at increased risk of hospitalisation and death following infection with acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Coronavirus third dose vaccine boosters are proposed to boost waning immune responses in immunocompromised individuals and increase coronavirus protection; however, their effectiveness has not yet been systematically evaluated. Methods: This study is a population-scale real-world evaluation of the United Kingdom’s third dose vaccine booster programme for cancer patients from 8th December 2020 to 7th December 2021. The cancer cohort comprises individuals from Public Health England’s national cancer dataset, excluding individuals less than 18 years. A test-negative case-control design was used to assess third dose booster vaccine effectiveness. Multivariable logistic regression models were fitted to compare risk in the cancer cohort relative to the general population. Results: The cancer cohort comprised of 2,258,553 tests from 361,098 individuals. Third dose boosters were evaluated by reference to 87,039,743 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) coronavirus tests. Vaccine effectiveness against breakthrough infections, symptomatic infections, coronavirus hospitalisation and death in cancer patients were 59.1%, 62.8%, 80.5% and 94.5% respectively. Lower vaccine effectiveness was associated with a cancer diagnosis within 12 months, lymphoma, recent systemic anti-cancer therapy (SACT) or radiotherapy. Lymphoma patients had low levels of protection from symptomatic disease. In spite of third dose boosters, following multivariable adjustment, individuals with cancer remain at increased risk of coronavirus hospitalisation and death compared to the population control (OR 3.38, 3.01 respectively. p<0.001 for both). Conclusions: Third dose boosters are effective for most individuals with cancer, increasing protection from coronavirus. However, their effectiveness is heterogenous, and lower than the general population. Many patients with cancer will remain at increased risk of coronavirus infections, even after 3 doses. In the case of patients with lymphoma, there is a particularly strong disparity of vaccine effectiveness against breakthrough infection and severe disease. Breakthrough infections will disrupt cancer care and treatment with potentially adverse consequences on survival outcomes. The data support the role of vaccine boosters in preventing severe disease, and further pharmacological intervention to prevent transmission and aid viral clearance to limit disruption of cancer care as the delivery of care continues to evolve during the coronavirus pandemic

Same task rules, different responses:Goal neglect, stimulus-response mapping and response modalities

To complete complex tasks, individuals must actively maintain task rules to direct behavior correctly. Failure to use task rules appropriately, termed goal neglect, has been shown across both vocal and manual response modalities. However, previous goal maintenance studies have differed not only in the response modality that they require, but also in the complexity of the stimulus–response mappings that participants must use during the task. The present study examines the effects of both response modality and stimulus–response mapping complexity, separately, on the rate of goal neglect in a modification of a classic goal maintenance task. Seventy-two younger adults were administered a shape-monitoring task, with three between-subjects response conditions: a vocal response with a simple stimulus–response mapping, a vocal response with a complex stimulus–response mapping, and a manual response with a complex stimulus–response mapping. Contrasting the rate at which task rules were neglected between response conditions showed that participants using complex stimulus–response mappings committed more frequent goal neglect than those using simple mappings, but that participants using vocal or manual responses did not differ in their rate of goal neglect once both responses required complex mappings. This suggests that the need to represent novel and complex stimulus–response mappings, of any modality, at the same time as novel task rules within working memory leads to some task rules being insufficiently maintained