Search

The association between adversity and cognition varies according to the specific adversity, when the adversity was experienced, and the cognitive domains investigated. Disentangling the effect of adversity and the underlying mechanistic pathway is therefore difficult. The association between adversity (i.e., maltreatment) accumulated over the life course and cognitive flexibility, as well as two potential mediators (i.e., intra-individual variability in reaction time and depression) of this association, were investigated. Data stem from the baseline population of the UK Biobank study (N = 73,489,Mdnage = 56,SDage = 7.628, 55.740% of women). Cumulative life course adversity (specifically maltreatment) was measured with items based on the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire (CTS-5) and items adapted from the British Crime Survey. Depression was assessed with the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9). Intra-individual variability in reaction time was measured with a reaction time test “snap game” and the Trail Making Test A and B were used as a measure of cognitive flexibility. A path analysis was performed on these data. Higher cumulative adverse experiences were associated with lower performance in cognitive flexibility (β = .016,p p

Funding: The research of A.M.S. was supported by an ‘INQMINDS’ ERC Starting Grant no. (SEP-210159400). Executive functions (EF) are a core aspect of cognition. Research with adult humans has produced evidence for unity and diversity in the structure of EF. Studies with preschoolers favour a 1-factor model, in which variation in EF tasks is best explained by a single underlying trait on which all EF tasks load. How EF are structured in nonhuman primates remains unknown. This study starts to fill this gap through a comparative, multi-trait multi-method test battery with preschoolers (N = 185) and chimpanzees (N = 55). The battery aimed at measuring working memory updating, inhibition, and attention shifting with three non-verbal tasks per function. For both species the correlations between tasks were low to moderate and not confined to tasks within the same putative function. Factor analyses produced some evidence for the unity of executive functions in both groups, in that our analyses revealed shared variance. However, we could not conclusively distinguish between 1-, 2- or 3-factor models. We discuss the implications of our findings with respect to the ecological validity of current psychometric research. Publisher PDF