Event Abstract

Measuring working memory in aphasia: Comparing performance on complex span and N-back tasks

  • 1 National Research University Higher School of Economics, Russia
  • 2 Center for Speech Pathology and Neurorehabilitation, Russia

Introduction Deficits in working memory (WM) are amongst the most widely acknowledged cognitive impairments in aphasia.However, there is still on-going debate what tasks should be used to assess WM in aphasia (Wright & Fergadiotos, 2012). The two main alternatives for this purpose are simplified complex span tasks and N-back tasks. In a typical complex span task, a processing task (e.g., sentence reading), is given along with a set of stimuli (e.g., words) to be remembered for later recall. In N-back tasks, participants are instructed to judge whether an item matches a previous one presented n items before. Proponents of complex span tasks state that these tasks are the gold standard for assessing WM capacity in cognitive psychology and that variations of these tasksare endorsed as valid means of indexing WM capacity within different theoretical frameworks. On the other hand, researchers using N-back tasks state that since these tasks are more language-free in nature, they are more appropriate for indexing cognitive non-linguistic abilities with language-impaired populations. Several investigations comparing the two tasks in healthy controls have demonstrated no relationship between the two tasks (Jaeggi et al., 2010; Kane et al., 2007). Although, limited conflicting findings indicating a significant relationship between the two tasks have also been reported (Schmiedek et al., 2009). Additionally, performance on complex span task in aphasia studies have repeatedly been related to performance on standardized language tests (Sung et al. 2009; Wright & Fergadiotos, 2012), while similar correlations have never found for N-back tasks (Christensen, & Wright, 2010; Mayer & Murray, 2012). The aim of the present study was to directly investigate the relationship between performance on complex span tasks and N-back tasks in aphasia. Methods 32native speakers of Russian with aphasia following left hemisphere stroke participated. Complex span task (modified listening span task, Ivanova & Hallowell, 2014), 2-back and 0-back tasks with words, a test of auditory language comprehension– Quantitative Assessment of Speech in Aphasia (QASA; Tsvetkova et al., 1981) – were administered. Results and discussion No significant correlations were observed between performance on complex span task and N-back tasks.Furthermore, performance on the modified listening span was related to performance on the comprehension subtest of the QASA, while no relationship was found for 2-back and 0-back tasks.Our results mirror studies in healthy controls that demonstrated no relationship between performance on the two tasks(Jaeggi et al., 2010; Kane et al., 2007). Thus although N-back tasks seem similar to traditional complex span measures and may also index abilities related to cognitive processing, the evidence to date does not warrant their direct association with the construct of WM. Implications for future investigation of cognitive deficits in aphasia will be discussed.

References

Christensen, S.C., & Wright, H.H. (2010). Verbal and non-verbal working memory in aphasia: What three n-back tasks reveal. Aphasiology, 24, 752-762.
Ivanova, M.V., & Hallowell, B. (2014). A new modified listening span task to enhance validity of working memory assessment for people with and without aphasia. Manuscript under review.
Jaeggi, S. M., Buschkuehl, M., Perrig, W. J., & Meier, B. (2010). The concurrent validity of the N-back task as a working memory measure. Memory, 18, 394–412.
Kane, M. J., Conway, A. R. A., Miura, T. K., & Colflesh, J. H. (2007). Working memory, attention control, and the N-back task: A question of construct validity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 615-622.
Mayer, J. F., & Murray, L. L. (2012). Measuring working memory deficits in aphasia. Journal of Communication Disorders, 45, 325-339.
Schmiedek, F., Hildebrandt, A., Lövdén, M., Lindenberger, U., & Wilhelm, O. (2009). Complex span versus updating tasks of working memory: the gap is not that deep. Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition, 35(4), 1089–96.
Sung, J. E., McNeil, M. R., Pratt, S. R., Dickey, M. W., Hula, W. D., Szuminsky, N. J., & Doyle, P. J. (2009). Verbal working memory and its relationship to sentence-level reading and listening comprehension in persons with aphasia. Aphasiology, 23, 1040-1052.
Tsvetkova, L.S., Axytina, T.V., & Pulaeva, N.M. (1981). Kolichestvennaya ocenka rechi y bol’nux s aphasieu[Quantitative language assessment in patients with aphasia]. Moscow: MGY. (in Russian)
Wright, H.H., & Fergadiotos, G. (2012). Conceptualizing and measuring working memory and its relationship to aphasia. Aphasiology, 26, 258-278.

Keywords: working memory capacity, working memory assessment, Aphasia, complex span tasks, N-back tasks

Conference: Academy of Aphasia -- 52nd Annual Meeting, Miami, FL, United States, 5 Oct - 7 Oct, 2014.

Presentation Type: Poster presentation ONLY

Topic: Not student

Citation: Ivanova M, Kuptsova S, Akinina Y, Iskra E, Kobzeva A and Dragoy O (2014). Measuring working memory in aphasia: Comparing performance on complex span and N-back tasks. Front. Psychol. Conference Abstract: Academy of Aphasia -- 52nd Annual Meeting. doi: 10.3389/conf.fpsyg.2014.64.00096

Copyright: The abstracts in this collection have not been subject to any Frontiers peer review or checks, and are not endorsed by Frontiers. They are made available through the Frontiers publishing platform as a service to conference organizers and presenters.

The copyright in the individual abstracts is owned by the author of each abstract or his/her employer unless otherwise stated.

Each abstract, as well as the collection of abstracts, are published under a Creative Commons CC-BY 4.0 (attribution) licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) and may thus be reproduced, translated, adapted and be the subject of derivative works provided the authors and Frontiers are attributed.

For Frontiers’ terms and conditions please see https://www.frontiersin.org/legal/terms-and-conditions.

Received: 30 Apr 2014; Published Online: 04 Aug 2014.

* Correspondence: Dr. Maria Ivanova, National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia, ivanova@berkeley.edu