Duration of presentat ion Exploring the Relationship between Attention Allocation and Working Memory Processes in Persons with and without Aphasia Sabine Heuer1 Maria Ivanova2 and Brooke Hallowell3 1University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee , 2National Research University Higher School of Economics, 3Ohio University Results Table 3 Correlations of Working Memory Storage and Processing Scores and Proportion of Fixation Duration on the Target Image (PFDT) in Language Comprehension Task in the Single and Dual Task with the Aphasia Quotient and the Comprehension Score of the WAB-R. Figure 1. Example of a set from the modified listening span task (set size two, short and simple condition). Eye-tracking WM task (EMWM) (Ivanova & Hallowell, 2012): The eye-tracking WM task was similar to the MLS task except that participants had to remember symbols/colors and performance was indexed via participants’ eye fixations, monitored and recorded at 60 Hz using a remote pupil center/corneal reflection system. Attention allocation task (AA) (Heuer & Hallowell, 2014): Eye fixations were monitored during a listening comprehension task in a single and dual task condition. In the single-task condition a verbal stimulus was presented followed by a corresponding image display, in which one image corresponded to the verbal stimulus. In the dual-task condition, participants were presented simultaneously with a visual search task and the verbal stimulus for the listening comprehension task, followed by a multiple-choice image display with one image corresponding to the verbal stimulus. Fogire Analysis Pearson Correlation Coefficients were calculated. Significant correlations between AA measures of single and dual task and WM measures of storage and processing were predicted. Background Verbal stimuli The woman is kissing the man. Bird The boy is finding the woman. Lock (recognition display) Visual stimuli Blank screen Duration of presentat ion Until participant gives a response (points to a picture) 2 sec. Until participant gives a response (points to images) Table 1 Correlations between Working Memory Processing Scores and Proportion of Fixation Duration on the Target Image (PFDT) in Language Comprehension Task in the Single and Dual task for Participants With and Without Aphasia Aphasia has been associated with : working memory (WM) deficits (Caplan, & Waters, 1999; Caspari, Parkinson, LaPointe, & Katz,1998; Ivanova & Hallowell, 2012; Murray, 2012, 1999; Wright & Shisler, 2005,) attention allocation deficits (Hula & McNeil, 2008; LaPointe & Erickson, 1991; McNeil et al., 2004; McNeil et al., 2005; Murray, Holland, & Beeson, 1997; Robin & Rizzo, 1988, Heuer & Hallowell, 2009; Murray, 2012). WM and attention deficits contribute to the very nature of language deficits in aphasia (Kurland, 2011; Hula & McNeil, 2008; McNeil & Pratt, 2001). How deficits in storage and processing of information, and in allocating attention are related to aphasia severity and contribution to language deficits is not well understood.   Participants without aphasia Participants with aphasia MLS processing (overall) MLS processing – short and simple EMWM processing MLS processing PFDT AA single overall .501* n/a .420* .379 .601** .258 simple stimuli .488* .413* .512* .653** .374 complex .303 .499** .147 .475* .035 dual .506** .491** .266 .544** .330 simple stimuli .494** .435* .351 .649** .246 medium .622** .361 .094 .516* .126 .331 .468** .155 .369 .234 Purpose We compared a variety of working memory storage and processing measures to a language comprehension task during single and dual-task processing. Note. WAB-R AQ Score = Western Aphasia Battery Aphasia Quotient; WAB-R AC Score = Western Aphasia Battery Auditory Verbal Comprehension Score. *p < .05. ** p <.01 Table 2 Correlations between Working Memory Storage Scores and Proportion of Fixation Duration on the Target Image (PFDT) in Language Comprehension Task in the Single and Dual Task for Participants With and Without Aphasia Conclusions With one exception, no correlations between MLS storage and AA measures across groups were observed, while MLS processing measures correlated with AA measures. There was a striking difference between the significant correlations for processing and storage for the eye-tracking WM task in controls participants and an absence of correlations in individuals with aphasia. Only the MLS processing scores and the AA measures were significantly correlated with WAB-AQ and AC scores. MLS storage required different, less linguistically mediated, cognitive processes than MLS processing Further experimentation is warranted. Results derived via the two novel methods may help test hypotheses about the degree to which deficits in attention allocation and working memory represent distinguishable impairments versus the same underlying impairment. Method Participants Twenty-three adults with aphasia (CVA verified through medical records), assessed with the Western Aphasia Battery-Revised (WAB-R, Kertesz, 2007). Thirty age- and education-matched controls who passed a mental status screening (Mini Mental Status Examination; MMSE; Folstein, Folstein, & McHugh, 1975) All passed vision and hearing screenings. Procedure Modified Listening Span (MLS) task (Ivanova & Hallowell, 2014): participants were asked to match sentences of varying length and complexity (active and passive) to pictures and also to remember a separate set of words for subsequent recognition.   Participants without aphasia Participants with aphasia MLS storage score (overall) MLS storage score – short and simple EMWM storage score MLS storage score PFDT AA single overall .218 .330 .493** .130 .227 .304 simple stimuli .379 .519** .508** .142 .129 .310 complex .132 .147 .476* .078 .279 Dual .211 .252 .546** .062 .228 .245 simple stimuli .231 .553** .108 .203 .267 medium .135 .313 .280 .287 .276 .258 .468** -.263 .030 .206 Figure 2. Example of AA single and dual-task condition. Acknowledgements This work was supported in part by an Ohio University Graduate Fellowship in the School of Hearing, Speech and Language Sciences, an Original Work Grant from the Ohio University Graduate Student Senate, and grants from the National Institutes of Health/National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders and the National Science Foundation Biomedical Engineering Research to Aid Persons with Disabilities Program. Note. MLS= Modified listening span task; EMWM=Eye movement working memory task; PFDT = proportion of fixation duration; AA = attention allocation * p < .05, ** p < .01.