MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

ISDN2014_0151: Attentional processes, cortisol and emotional states in preadolescent children from different socioeconomic status

2015· article· en· W2657538463 on OpenAlexaff
Amedeo D’Angiulli, Patricia Van Roon, Kylie Schibli

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Developmental Neuroscience · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfant Development and Preterm Care
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyCitationSocioeconomic statusLibrary scienceSociologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Increasing evidence indicates that prefrontal and frontal brain areas of children with high and low family socioeconomic status (SES) are differently engaged in neurocognitive laboratory tasks. However, few studies investigating SES have directly assessed non-cognitive aspects of functions related to self-regulation, emotional state and motivation that may confound the observed differences in frontally controlled neural processes. This paper addressed this question by examining the relationships between EEG correlates of attentional processes, salivary cortisol levels and emotional states in two groups of preadolescent children (17 low-SES and 17 high-SES). ERPs and EEG activity were measured during a well-established oddball selective attention auditory task presenting sequences of tones. Other measurements included baseline, pre-/post-task salivary cortisol and self-reported emotional states, as well as post-task appraisals. Consistent with previous results, we found that the high-SES group showed a greater ERP differentiation between attended (relevant) and unattended (irrelevant) stimuli. EEG power analysis showed that of the frequency bands analyzed, the most interesting results were found for theta. Theta power was generally higher when participants ignored tones rather than when they attended to all tones. Interestingly, there was also a significant crossover interaction between SES group and attention condition on theta peak power: low-SES participants showed significantly higher power when ignoring tones rather than attending to them, whereas, high-SES participants showed higher power when attending to tones rather than ignoring them. In addition, significant asymmetry differences were found at FC3–FC4 electrodes: more individuals in the low-SES group had relatively greater left (58%) than right (42%) theta activation, whereas in the high-SES group, more individuals had relatively greater right (82%) than left (18%) theta activation. Stepwise-regression of behavioral data (accuracy and reaction times), cortisol data and self-reports on the difference of theta power between attended vs. unattended distracters revealed significant individual variations in the increase of selective attention in the two groups. Theta power difference increased with SES and involved central and right frontal electrodes. Cortisol concentrations were inversely related to theta power difference in left frontal areas at the beginning of the oddball task, and an effect of SES was found only in the left fronto-central electrodes. Cortisol concentrations after the oddball task were inversely correlated with theta power difference bilaterally in fronto-central electrodes. Both before and after the task, effects were additive as there was no interaction between SES and cortisol. Furthermore, cortisol at the beginning of the task was highly positively correlated with self-report of boredom (r = .697). Boredom at the beginning of the task was correlated (r = 394) with theta power difference at the LEFT but not the RIGHT fronto-central electrodes. The only significant relationship concerning the behavioral responses was an inverse relationship (r = −.374) between theta power difference at the parietal midline electrode and accuracy in inhibiting response. These findings suggest that aspects related to self-regulation, emotional state and motivation can account for differences between low and high-SES children in frontally controlled processes otherwise interpretable as result of differences only in executive and cognitive functioning.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.515

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.249 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Developmental NeuroscienceSame topicInfant Development and Preterm CareFrench-language works237,207