Nazlie Faridi1, Sherif Karama2, Miguel Burgaleta3, Matthew T White, Matthew White4, Alan C Evans5, Vladimir Fonov5, D Louis Collins5, Deborah P Waber4. 1. Department of Psychiatry, McGill University. 2. Department of Psychiatry, Douglas Mental Health University Institute. 3. McConnell Brain Imaging Centre, Montreal Neurological Institute. 4. Department of Psychiatry, Boston Children's Hospital, Harvard Medical School. 5. McConnell Brain Imaging Centre, Montreal Neurological Institute, McGill University.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The frequent lack of correspondence between performance and observational measures of executive functioning, including working memory, has raised questions about the validity of the observational measures. This study was conducted to investigate sources of this discrepancy through correlation of volumetric and cortical thickness (CT) neuroimaging values with performance and questionnaire measures of working memory (WM). METHODS: Using longitudinal data from the NIH MRI Study of Normal Brain Development (Volumes, N= 347, 54.3% female; CT, N= 350, 54.6% female; age range: 6 to 16.9 years), scores on the Behavioral Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF) WM, Emotional Control (EC) and Inhibition (INH) scales; Wechsler Scale of Intelligence for Children-III Digit Span; and Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Battery Spatial Working Memory (CANTAB SWM) were correlated with each other and with morphometric measurements using mixed effects linear regression models. RESULTS: BRIEF WM was correlated with CANTAB SWM (p < .001). With whole brain correction, BRIEF WM and EC were both correlated with CT of the posterior parahippocampal gyrus (PHG), EC on the right side only. Performance measures of WM were unrelated to lobar volumes or CT, but were associated with volumes of hippocampus and amygdala. CONCLUSIONS: The known role of PHG in contextual learning suggests that the BRIEF WM assesses contextualized learning/memory, potentially explaining its loose correspondence to the decontextualized performance measures. Observational measures can be useful and valid functional metrics, complementing performance measures. Labels used to characterize scales should be interpreted with caution, however. PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2015 APA, all rights reserved.
OBJECTIVE: The frequent lack of correspondence between performance and observational measures of executive functioning, including working memory, has raised questions about the validity of the observational measures. This study was conducted to investigate sources of this discrepancy through correlation of volumetric and cortical thickness (CT) neuroimaging values with performance and questionnaire measures of working memory (WM). METHODS: Using longitudinal data from the NIH MRI Study of Normal Brain Development (Volumes, N= 347, 54.3% female; CT, N= 350, 54.6% female; age range: 6 to 16.9 years), scores on the Behavioral Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF) WM, Emotional Control (EC) and Inhibition (INH) scales; Wechsler Scale of Intelligence for Children-III Digit Span; and Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Battery Spatial Working Memory (CANTAB SWM) were correlated with each other and with morphometric measurements using mixed effects linear regression models. RESULTS: BRIEF WM was correlated with CANTAB SWM (p < .001). With whole brain correction, BRIEF WM and EC were both correlated with CT of the posterior parahippocampal gyrus (PHG), EC on the right side only. Performance measures of WM were unrelated to lobar volumes or CT, but were associated with volumes of hippocampus and amygdala. CONCLUSIONS: The known role of PHG in contextual learning suggests that the BRIEF WM assesses contextualized learning/memory, potentially explaining its loose correspondence to the decontextualized performance measures. Observational measures can be useful and valid functional metrics, complementing performance measures. Labels used to characterize scales should be interpreted with caution, however. PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2015 APA, all rights reserved.
Authors: Melissa M Pangelinan; Guangyu Zhang; John W VanMeter; Jane E Clark; Bradley D Hatfield; Amy J Haufler Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2010-11-13 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Tuong-Vi Nguyen; James McCracken; Simon Ducharme; Kelly N Botteron; Megan Mahabir; Wendy Johnson; Mimi Israel; Alan C Evans; Sherif Karama Journal: Cereb Cortex Date: 2012-05-22 Impact factor: 5.357
Authors: Jorge R C Almeida; Andrea Mechelli; Stefanie Hassel; Amelia Versace; David J Kupfer; Mary L Phillips Journal: Psychiatry Res Date: 2009-11-11 Impact factor: 3.222
Authors: Duncan B Clark; Tammy Chung; Christopher S Martin; Brant P Hasler; Douglas H Fitzgerald; Beatriz Luna; Sandra A Brown; Susan F Tapert; Ty Brumback; Kevin Cummins; Adolf Pfefferbaum; Edith V Sullivan; Kilian M Pohl; Ian M Colrain; Fiona C Baker; Michael D De Bellis; Kate B Nooner; Bonnie J Nagel Journal: Front Behav Neurosci Date: 2017-11-13 Impact factor: 3.558
Authors: Cynthia A Berg; Deborah J Wiebe; Yana Suchy; Sara L Turner; Jonathan Butner; Ascher Munion; Amy Hughes Lansing; Perrin C White; Mary Murray Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2018-08-21 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: John F Strang; Diane Chen; Eric Nelson; Scott F Leibowitz; Leena Nahata; Laura G Anthony; Amber Song; Connor Grannis; Elizabeth Graham; Shane Henise; Eric Vilain; Eleonora Sadikova; Andrew Freeman; Cara Pugliese; Ayesha Khawaja; Tekla Maisashvili; Michael Mancilla; Lauren Kenworthy Journal: Child Psychiatry Hum Dev Date: 2021-06-19