1. Matthew Winchester Frontiers of Science Institute 2011 Mentor: Marilyn Welsh, Ph.D. Sponsor: Newmont Mining http://mybrainnotes.com

2. Executive Function  Prefrontal cortex  Problem solving, working memory, inhibitory control, planning, etc.  Dorsolateral, orbitofrontal, frontopolar regions http://northernutahhypnosis.com

3. “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

4. “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

5. Procedure  10 FSI students tested  3 tasks given… Iowa Gambling Task (IGT) Letter-Number Sequencing (LNS) Tower of London (TOL)  …under 2 settings Non-incentive conditions Incentive conditions (for 25$ gift card)

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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 condition http://heart.bmj.com

9. Hypotheses Research 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.

10. Statistical Analysis  SPSS PASW Statistics  Paired sample t-test  Correlational Analysis

11. 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

12. 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.

13. r (8) = 0.268, p = 0.227

14. 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

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

18. 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

19. r (8) = 0.776, p = 0.004

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

21. 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)

22. Discussion (Research Q cont.)  Incentive has different effects on different individuals  Increase attention/motivation?  Increase stress/anxiety?

23. 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?

24. 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

25. 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

26. 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

27. Future Studies  Much more to study!  Limitations… Participants Trials Tasks

28. 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!

29. 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).