Table_1_Age-Related Developmental and Individual Differences in the Influence of Social and Non-social Distractors on Cognitive Performance.PDF

<p>This study sought to examine age-related differences in the influences of social (neutral, emotional faces) and non-social/non-emotional (shapes) distractor stimuli in children, adolescents, and adults. To assess the degree to which distractor, or task-irrelevant, stimuli of varying social and emotional salience interfere with cognitive performance, children (N = 12; 8–12y), adolescents (N = 17; 13–17y), and adults (N = 17; 18–52y) completed the Emotional Identification and Dynamic Faces (EIDF) task. This task included three types of dynamically-changing distractors: (1) neutral-social (neutral face changing into another face); (2) emotional-social (face changing from 0% emotional to 100% emotional); and (3) non-social/non-emotional (shapes changing from small to large) to index the influence of task-irrelevant social and emotional information on cognition. Results yielded no age-related differences in accuracy but showed an age-related linear reduction in correct reaction times across distractor conditions. An age-related effect in interference was observed, such that children and adults showed slower response times on correct trials with socially-salient distractors; whereas adolescents exhibited faster responses on trials with distractors that included faces rather than shapes. A secondary study goal was to explore individual differences in cognitive interference. Results suggested that regardless of age, low trait anxiety and high effortful control were associated with interference to angry faces. Implications for developmental differences in affective processing, notably the importance of considering the contexts in which purportedly irrelevant social and emotional information might impair, vs. improve cognitive control, are discussed.</p

Figure 2

<p><i>a</i>. Significant differences observed in ventral prefrontal regions (VMPFC and VLPFC-left) among anxious with caregiver group, anxious without caregiver group and controls. <i>b</i>. Z-scores of VMPFC activity among anxious with caregiver group, anxious without caregiver group and controls. <i>c</i>. Z-scores of VLPFC-left activity among anxious with caregiver group, anxious without caregiver group and controls.</p

Symptom contrast of anxiety severity scores SCARED (youth and parent rating) and PARS between anxious groups.

<p>Symptom contrast of anxiety severity scores SCARED (youth and parent rating) and PARS between anxious groups.</p

Regions associated with reduced activity in association with social proximity.

<p><i>Note:</i> Coordinates for each cluster's center-of-mass are presented in Talairach space.</p

Figure 1

<p><i>a</i>. Significant difference observed in hypothalamus among anxious with caregiver group, anxious without caregiver group and controls. <i>b</i>. Z-scores of hypothalamic activity among anxious with caregiver group, anxious without caregiver group and controls.</p