Mechanisms and Representations in Visual Selective Attention, Perception, and Working Memory

2018 ◽  
Vol 55 (S1) ◽  
pp. S11-S12
2002 ◽  
Vol 162 (4) ◽  
pp. 351-363 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. van Laar ◽  
E. Volkerts ◽  
M. Verbaten ◽  
S. Trooster ◽  
H. van Megen ◽  
...  

2014 ◽  
Vol 40 (1) ◽  
pp. 391-403 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bryan R. Burnham ◽  
Matthew Sabia ◽  
Catherine Langan

Author(s):  
Dr. Ahmed Kamal

Both verbal and visuospatial working memory adding to selective attention, have been examined in two groups (Mean age = 12.59 years old). One of the two groups displaying math learning disabilities (n=36), this group acts as an experimental group, and the other group without learning disabilities acts as a control group (n=36), the two groups were matched for age and IQ. The two groups presented with complex span tasks to assess working memory capacity (WMC), operation span task (OSPAN) used to assess verbal working memory capacity, symmetry span task used to assess visuospatial working memory capacity; the two previous tasks administrated automatically by using computers. Selective attention assessed in the two groups by using a colored square task (CST) that used for assessing visual selective attention and it administrated automatically. Results revealed that the performance of children with MLD was lower than the control group (typically achieving children) in both verbal and visuospatial working memory, moreover, the two groups differed in the number of correct responses (accuracy) in visual selective attention for typically achieved children, but there is no significant difference between them in response time (speed).


Science ◽  
2001 ◽  
Vol 291 (5509) ◽  
pp. 1803-1806 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. W. de Fockert

2017 ◽  
Vol 17 (10) ◽  
pp. 967
Author(s):  
María Quirós-Godoy ◽  
Juan Botella ◽  
Beatriz Gil-Gómez de Liaño

2020 ◽  
Vol 63 (9) ◽  
pp. 3036-3050
Author(s):  
Elma Blom ◽  
Tessel Boerma

Purpose Many children with developmental language disorder (DLD) have weaknesses in executive functioning (EF), specifically in tasks testing interference control and working memory. It is unknown how EF develops in children with DLD, if EF abilities are related to DLD severity and persistence, and if EF weaknesses expand to selective attention. This study aimed to address these gaps. Method Data from 78 children with DLD and 39 typically developing (TD) children were collected at three times with 1-year intervals. At Time 1, the children were 5 or 6 years old. Flanker, Dot Matrix, and Sky Search tasks tested interference control, visuospatial working memory, and selective attention, respectively. DLD severity was based on children's language ability. DLD persistence was based on stability of the DLD diagnosis. Results Performance on all tasks improved in both groups. TD children outperformed children with DLD on interference control. No differences were found for visuospatial working memory and selective attention. An interference control gap between the DLD and TD groups emerged between Time 1 and Time 2. Severity and persistence of DLD were related to interference control and working memory; the impact on working memory was stronger. Selective attention was unrelated to DLD severity and persistence. Conclusions Age and DLD severity and persistence determine whether or not children with DLD show EF weaknesses. Interference control is most clearly impaired in children with DLD who are 6 years and older. Visuospatial working memory is impaired in children with severe and persistent DLD. Selective attention is spared.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document