Article Figures & Data
Figures
- Figure 1.
A, Probabilistic map showing common activation during a blockwise spatial working memory task (z > 2.58; contrast: Hard–Easy) in at least 2 participants and a maximum of 8 participants (22% of participants). B, Example significant maps are depicted for 4 participants.
- Figure 2.
Mean selectivity in the right (A,B) and left (C,D) multiple demand (MD) network subject-specific functional regions of interest (ss-fROIs) during the spatial working memory (SWM) (blue) and language localizer (pink) tasks for children (lighter colors) and adults (darker colors). One-tailed sign tests were conducted to test whether MD selectivity is significantly >0. Two-tailed sign tests were conducted to test whether language selectivity is significantly different from zero. Repeated-measures, one-tailed sign tests were conducted to test whether children show greater MD than language selectivity in MD ss-fROIs. Wilcoxon rank sum tests were conducted to test whether adults show greater MD selectivity than children in motion-matched comparison groups. Extended Data Figure 2-1 represents the average percent signal change for each condition, which was used to calculate selectivity. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001; strength of significance (uncorrected). Red symbols represent Bonferroni-Holm–corrected p < 0.05. Error bars indicate SE.
- Figure 3.
Mean resting-state connectivity of subject-specific functional regions of interest (ss-fROIs) for the multiple demand (MD) and language networks, separated by hemisphere. Group means for the cross-sectional adult (A; n = 26) and child (B; n =34), and longitudinal child (C; n = 8) samples are depicted. Two-tailed repeated-measures t tests show significantly greater within- than between-network connectivity in both hemispheres. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < .001; strength of significance (uncorrected). Error bars indicate SE.
- Figure 4.
Pearson correlations for age and behavioral metrics during the spatial working memory (SWM) task in the cross-sectional child sample. Accuracy (A,C) and reaction time (B,D) during Easy (A,B) and Hard (C,D) trials are reported separately.
- Figure 5.
Pearson correlations between neural selectivity of multiple demand (MD) subject-specific functional regions of interest (ss-fROIs) and behavioral accuracy during Hard trials of the spatial working memory task in children (A) and adults (B); stronger selectivity was related to better task performance regardless of age. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001; strength of significance (uncorrected). A full list of statistics by individual ss-fROIs is reported in Extended Data Table 3-1 for children and Extended Data Table 3-2 for adults.
Tables
- Table 1.
Demographics and behavioral variables for children and adults included in selectivity analyses
Children [mean (SD) or %] (n = 37) Wiggly adults [mean (SD) or %] (n = 16) Adults [mean (SD) or %] (n = 44) Age (yr) 8.3 (2.1) 22.9 (4.8) 23.9 (4.9) Sex (% female) 35% 69% 48% Race White 74% 65% 71% Black 14% 6% 4% Asian 3% 14% 11% Other 9% 15% 14% Handedness (% right) 89% 100% 93% Framewise displacement 167.3 (77.4) 171.9 (131.8) 49.3 (12.6) Children (n = 37) Wiggly adults (n = 16) Adults (n = 44) Median DS p Median DS p Median DS p Right hemisphere Posterior parietal 0.15 0.51 1.28 × 10−3* 0.29 1.00 3.05 × 10−5* 0.24 1.00 5.72 × 10−14* Superior parietal 0.09 0.30 0.045* 0.43 1.00 2.59 × 10−4* 0.27 0.95 2.56 × 10−12* Inferior parietal 0.22 0.51 1.28 × 10−3* 0.43 1.00 1.53 × 10−5* 0.31 0.95 5.63 × 10−11* Precentral gyrus 0.14 0.38 0.010 0.46 1.00 2.59 × 10−4* 0.32 0.91 5.63 × 10−11* Superior frontal sulcus 0.12 0.30 0.040 0.43 0.75 2.09 × 10−3* 0.27 0.91 2.56 × 10−12* Inferior frontal sulcus 0.11 0.35 0.018 0.61 1.00 2.59 × 10−4* 0.35 0.95 2.56 × 10−12* Middle frontal gyrus 0.11 0.19 0.155 0.68 1.00 3.69 × 10−3* 0.55 0.91 5.63 × 10−11* Orbital middle frontal gyrus 0.16 0.14 0.250 0.92 0.75 0.038 0.74 0.95 2.56 × 10−12* Inferior frontal gyrus 0.28 0.41 0.010 0.67 0.88 2.09 × 10−3* 0.57 1.00 5.72 × 10−14* Anterior cingulate cortex 0.15 0.24 0.088 0.43 0.88 0.046 0.48 0.95 2.56 × 10−12* Left hemisphere Posterior parietal 0.17 0.43 4.52 × 10−3* 0.35 1.00 1.53 × 10−5* 0.22 1.00 5.72 × 10−14* Superior parietal 0.30 0.32 0.033* 0.37 1.00 4.88 × 10−4* 0.28 1.00 5.72 × 10−14* Inferior parietal 0.26 0.38 0.014* 0.33 1.00 4.88 × 10−4* 0.29 1.00 5.72 × 10−14* Precentral gyrus 0.18 0.54 2.68 × 10−4* 0.35 0.88 3.69 × 10−3* 0.25 0.91 5.63 × 10−11* Superior frontal sulcus 0.25 0.43 5.67 × 10−3* 0.36 1.00 2.59 × 10−4* 0.31 1.00 5.72 × 10−14* Inferior frontal sulcus 0.20 0.40 8.34 × 10−3* 0.41 1.00 3.69 × 10−3* 0.37 0.95 2.56 × 10−12* Middle frontal gyrus 0.30 0.38 0.012* 0.53 1.00 3.69 × 10−3* 0.48 0.95 2.56 × 10−12* Orbital middle frontal gyrus 0.33 0.38 0.012* 0.65 0.88 0.029 0.76 0.86 8.09 × 10−10* Inferior frontal gyrus 0.16 0.16 0.203 0.52 1.00 0.029 0.44 0.95 2.56 × 10−12* Anterior cingulate cortex 0.14 0.32 0.029 0.15 0.88 0.073 0.42 0.91 5.63 × 10−11* ↵aOne-tailed sign-tests were conducted and medians are reported because of negatively skewed distribution. Subject-specific functional regions of interest (ss-fROIs) are grouped by hemisphere and brain lobe. DS, Dominance statistic. Extended Data Table 2-1 lists the nonparametric effect sizes for each group. Extended Data Table 2-2 lists statistics for comparisons between children and adult groups. Extended Data Table 2-3 lists statistics for language selectivity and repeated-measures comparisons between multiple demand (MD) and language selectivity of MD ss-fROIs for children and adults, separately. Extended Data Table 2-4 lists comparisons of percent signal change for relevant conditions in the spatial working memory (SWM) and language tasks.
↵*Corrected p < 0.05 (Bonferroni-Holm, 3 parietal regions, 7 frontal regions) for each group (e.g., significant selectivity > 0).
- Table 3.
Main effect of selectivity of MD ss-fROIs on accuracy during hard trials of the spatial working memory task in the cross-sectional child sample (n = 32)a
Accuracy: hard trials Selectivity (B) Selectivity (t) Age (B) Age (t) Full model (F) Adjusted R2 Right hemisphere Posterior parietal 0.17 1.98 2.20 × 10−2 1.47 2.35 0.08 Superior parietal 0.13 2.10* 1.21 × 10−2 0.86 2.60 0.09 Inferior parietal 0.24 3.63** 1.46 × 10−2 1.17 7.10** 0.28b Precentral gyrus 0.21 3.10** 7.69 × 10−3 0.59 5.25* 0.22 Superior frontal sulcus 0.16 2.64* 8.75 × 10−3 0.64 3.92* 0.16 Inferior frontal sulcus 0.28 4.01*** −1.12 × 10−4 −0.01 8.56** 0.33b Middle frontal gyrus 0.23 4.21*** 2.16 × 10−3 0.18 9.43*** 0.35b Orbital middle frontal gyrus 0.10 1.62 5.51 × 10−3 0.37 1.69 0.04 Inferior frontal gyrus 0.08 1.06 1.02 × 10−2 0.68 0.92 −5.36 × 10−3 Anterior cingulate cortex 0.12 1.98 8.76 × 10−5 0.01 2.35 0.08 Pooled selectivity 0.16 7.97*** 8.19 × 10−3 1.95 NA NA Left hemisphere Posterior parietal 0.20 2.87** 1.85 × 10−2 1.37 4.58* 0.19 Superior parietal 0.14 2.38* 1.14 × 10−2 0.83 3.25 0.13 Inferior parietal 0.11 1.74 8.48 × 10−3 0.58 1.90 0.06 Precentral gyrus 0.09 1.07 1.34 × 10−2 0.90 0.93 −4.47 × 10−3 Superior frontal sulcus 0.12 2.05 8.41 × 10−3 0.59 2.49 0.09 Inferior frontal sulcus 0.08 1.36 5.11 × 10−3 0.33 1.30 0.02 Middle frontal gyrus 0.10 1.61 7.75 × 10−3 0.53 1.67 0.04 Orbital middle frontal gyrus 0.03 0.47 1.07 × 10−2 0.69 0.46 −0.04 Inferior frontal gyrus 0.07 0.92 6.73 × 10−3 0.42 0.78 −0.01 Anterior cingulate cortex 0.11 1.76 2.91 × 10−3 0.19 1.93 0.06 Pooled selectivity 0.10 5.15*** 8.42 × 10−3 1.89 NA NA ↵aTo examine individual subject-specific functional regions of interest (ss-fROIs), multiple linear regressions (df = 2,29) were conducted to account for variability associated with age. To examine the whole network within hemisphere, linear mixed effects models (df = 317) estimate the effect of selectivity and age on accuracy, with random intercepts by ss-fROI.
↵bBonferroni-Holm indicates full model corrected p < 0.05 (corrected for 3 parietal or 7 frontal regions). Extended Data Tables 3-1 and 3–2 list the Pearson correlations between accuracy and selectivity of multiple demand (MD) ss-fROIs for children and adults, respectively. Extended Data Table 3-3 lists the main effects of selectivity and age for multiple linear regressions estimating accuracy during easy trials among children.
↵*p < 0.05;
↵**p < 0.01;
↵***p < 0.001; strength of significance (uncorrected).
- Table 4.
Longitudinal change in selectivity and change in age explaining change in accuracy during hard trials of an SWM task in a subsample of children scanned twice, about 1 year apart (n = 6)a
Accuracy: hard trials Change in selectivity (t) Change in age (t) Age at first scan (t) Full model (F) Right hemisphere Posterior parietal 0.83 0.84 –0.23 0.50 Superior parietal 0.69 0.70 0.54 0.04 Inferior parietal 3.63 3.48 2.59 1.01 Precentral gyrus –0.96 –0.38 0.53 0.13 Superior frontal sulcus –0.20 –0.05 –0.07 0.04 Inferior frontal sulcus 0.30 0.40 –0.08 2.04 Middle frontal gyrus 1.47 1.03 –0.60 0.41 Orbital middle frontal gyrus 0.08 0.29 0.17 0.34 Inferior frontal gyrus 0.41 0.49 0.32 0.03 Anterior cingulate cortex 2.05 2.03 1.70 1.47 Pooled selectivity 1.55 2.04* 1.10 NA Left hemisphere Posterior parietal 1.18 0.62 –0.42 0.27 Superior parietal 0.24 0.36 0.25 0.19 Inferior parietal 1.69 –0.74 –1.30 4.57 Precentral gyrus –0.54 –0.42 0.33 0.34 Superior frontal sulcus 0.23 0.35 0.26 0.04 Inferior frontal sulcus 2.41 2.13 1.88 0.06 Middle frontal gyrus 1.06 –0.62 –0.77 0.78 Orbital middle frontal gyrus 0.95 0.63 −0.02 0.03 Inferior frontal gyrus –0.01 0.23 0.16 0.08 Anterior cingulate cortex 0.20 0.38 0.10 0.04 Pooled selectivity 2.12* 1.95 0.53 NA - Table 5.
ANOVAs comparing linear mixed effects models (with a random intercept by ss-fROI) that explain variance in accuracy from age or pooled selectivity (within hemisphere) alone to similar linear mixed effects models, including both age and pooled selectivity as explanatory variablesa
Hard trials Easy trials Comparison model Age (χ2) Selectivity (χ2) Age (χ2) Selectivity (χ2) Right hemisphere Pooled selectivity 25.70** 3.60 37.96*** 63.08*** Left hemisphere Pooled selectivity 58.38*** 3.83 16.39** 59.22*** ↵aSignificant χ2 reflects that models with age and selectivity explain significantly more variance than models with age or selectivity alone. Extended Data Table 5-1 lists ANOVA results comparing linear regressions and multiple linear regressions for individual ss-fROIs that show a significant multiple linear regression model in Table 3 or Extended Data Table 3-3. Extended Data Tables 5-2 and 5-3 list the main effects of selectivity and age group (child and adult), and the interaction effect, explaining accuracy during hard trials for the full child and adult samples (Extended Data Table 5-2) and for a performance-matched subsample (Extended Data Table 5-3).
↵**p < 0.01;
↵***p < 0.001; strength of significance.
Extended Data Table 2-1
Non-parametric effect size (test statistic/sqrt(observations); Fritz, Morris, & Richler, 2012) for the single sample sign tests evaluating if selectivity to cognitive load is greater than zero for multiple demand network subject-specific functional regions of interest (ss-fROIs). Download Table 2-1, DOCX file.
Extended Data Table 2-2
Wilcoxon rank sum test effect sizes (R package: coin) comparing child and adult multiple demand network selectivity indexes for motion-matched (child N = 37; adult n = 16) and performance-matched (child n = 23; adult n = 18) samples. Download Table 2-2, DOCX file.
Extended Data Table 2-3
Selectivity of the multiple demand (MD) subject-specific functional regions of interest (ss-fROIs) during the language localizer task for children (n = 34) and adults (n = 29) who also completed at least one run of the language localizer task. Download Table 2-3, DOCX file.
Extended Data Table 2-4
Wilcoxon rank sum test effect sizes (R package: coin) comparing percent signal change (PSC) for the multiple demand (MD) subject-specific functional regions of interest during the spatial working memory (Hard > Easy (H > E)) and language localizer (Sentences > Nonsense (Sn > Ns); Nonsense > Sentences (Ns > Sn)) tasks in children and adults. PSC values were averaged across runs for individuals with two runs of the task. Download Table 2-4, DOCX file.
Figure 2-1
Depicts mean PSC for each condition in the bilateral the MD ss-fROIs for children and adults during the SWM (blue; Hard and Easy) and language localizer tasks (pink; Sentences, Nonsense sentences, and Texturized speech). The average PSC values across both runs of the task were used for comparisons; PSC values for children with only one run of the language task reflect the average PSC for a single run. Error bars indicate SE. Download Figure 2-1, TIF file.
Extended Data Table 3-1
Pearson correlations (df = 30) between accuracy during Hard and Easy trials and selectivity of individual MD subject-specific functional regions of interest (ss-fROIs) among children with available accuracy data (n = 32). Download Table 3-1, DOCX file.
Extended Data Table 3-2
Pearson correlations (df = 33) between accuracy during Hard and Easy trials and selectivity of individual MD subject-specific functional regions of interest (ss-fROIs) among adults with available accuracy data (n = 35). Download Table 3-2, DOCX file.
Extended Data Table 3-3
Main effect of selectivity of MD subject-specific functional regions of interest (ss-fROIs) on accuracy during Easy trials of the spatial working memory task in the cross-sectional child sample (n = 32). Download Table 3-3, DOCX file.
Extended Data Table 5-1
Stepwise regressions comparing linear regression models with age or selectivity alone to multiple linear regression models including both age and selectivity (ANOVAs) for regions with a significant multiple linear regression model in Table 3 or Table 3-3. Download Table 5-1, DOCX file.
Extended Data Table 5-2
Main effects of Selectivity and Age Group (child and adult), and the interaction effect, explaining accuracy (during Hard trials) on a spatial working memory task for individual subject-specific functional regions of interest (ss-fROIs; two-way ANOVAs) and when selectivity is pooled within hemisphere (linear mixed effects models with random intercepts by ss-fROI). Download Table 5-2, DOCX file.
Extended Data Table 5-3
Main effects of Selectivity and Age Group (child and adult), and the interaction effect, explaining accuracy (during Hard trials) on a spatial working memory task for individual subject-specific functional regions of interest (ss-fROIs; two-way ANOVAs) and when selectivity is pooled within hemisphere (linear mixed effects models with random intercepts by ss-fROI) for a performance-matched sample of children (n = 23) and adults (n = 18). Download Table 5-3, DOCX file.
