Neither Enhanced Nor Lost: The Unique Role of Attention in Children's Neural Representations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A defining feature of children's cognition is the especially slow development of their attention. Despite a rich behavioral literature characterizing the development of attention, little is known about how developing attentional abilities modulate neural representations in children. This information is critical to understanding how attentional development shapes the way children process information. One possibility is that attention might be less likely to shape neural representations in children as compared with adults. In particular, representations of attended items may be less likely to be enhanced relative to unattended items. To investigate this possibility, we measured brain activity using fMRI while children (seven to nine years; male and female) and adults (21–31 years; male and female) performed a one-back task in which they were directed to attend to either motion direction or an object in a display where both were present. We used multivoxel pattern analysis to compare decoding accuracy of attended and unattended information. Consistent with attentional enhancement, we found higher decoding accuracy for task-relevant information (i.e., objects in the object-attended condition) than for task-irrelevant information (i.e., motion in the object-attended condition) in adults' visual cortices. However, in children's visual cortices, both task-relevant and task-irrelevant information were decoded equally well. What is more, whole-brain analysis showed that the children represented task-irrelevant information more than adults in multiple regions across the brain, including the prefrontal cortex. These findings show that (1) attention does not modulate neural representations in the child visual cortex, and (2) developing brains can, and do, represent more information than mature brains. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Children have been shown to struggle with maintaining their attention to specific information, and at the same time, can show better learning of “distractors.” While these are critical properties of childhood, their underlying neural mechanisms are unknown. To fill in this critical knowledge gap, we explored how attention shapes what is represented in children's and adults' brains using fMRI while both were asked to focus on just one of two things (objects and motion). We found that unlike adults, who prioritize the information they were asked to focus on, children represent both what they were asked to prioritize and what they were asked to ignore. This shows that attention has a fundamentally different impact on children's neural representations.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".