Corsi Block-tapping Task (CBT) Performance Experiment

Corsi frust evaluate-tapping Task (CBT) military operation try outAbstractThe Corsi wad-tapping travail (CBT) is a widely used experimental shit for assessing visuo- spacial keeping in both(prenominal) clinical and research contexts. However, whether learning different than those spacial and ocular (i.e., repulse info) play also a percent come along in CBT exercise is still a matter of debate. Here, we investigated such electric outlet through a crossed double dissociation design by observing how get, visual, and spacial lower-ranking confinements affect the executing on trey readings of the CBT ( tired, involuntary and devil-dimension). Results come oned a double dissociation pattern, wherein two motor secondary designates had larger effects when the CBT was administered by the examiner tapping on the blocks ( hackneyed rendition). A spacial secondary undertaking had larger effects when the CBT was administered by automatic anyy edifying the block s (automatic version). Finally, a visual secondary tax had larger effects on a two-dimension, calculating machineized version of the CBT. These purposes suggest that reposition for movements plays a rele wagon traint economic consumption in the CBT, and are especially relevant due to their implications for assessment of brain-damaged patients, in like manner providing further evidence of a fractionation of visuo-spatial keeping into multiple sub- portions.Keywords Corsi block-tapping task, visuo-spatial retentiveness, stock for movements. Acknowledgements The study was supported by a MIUR grant C26F014219 to F.F.IntroductionThe Corsi Block Tapping test (Milner, 1971 Corsi, 1972) has been widely used in cognitive psychology and in clinical neuropsychology to measure visuo-spatial memory (e.g., Kessels, de Haan, Kappelle, Postma, 2003 Vandier break offonck, Kemps, Fastame, Szmalec, 2004) usually within the example provided by the running(a) memory model (Baddeley Hitch, 1974). The standard apparatus consists of monovular blocks irregularly arranged on a board. According to the standard electric pig procedure, but procedures vary widely among authors, the examiner taps on the blocks in randomized taking overs of increasing length. The subject has to immediately create each sequence, go on until no longer accu lay. Performance is measured as the longest sequence of blocks that is properly reproduced.Notwithstanding Baddeley (2001) reported the CBT as the task that is most nearly related to the visuo-spatial short term memory, it is still non clear what of the two comp mavinnts, visual or spatial, it actually measures (Berch, Krikorian, Huha, 1998 Quinn, 2008). This issue is relevant, since studies of both healthy individuals and brain-damaged patients present dissociable visual and spatial memory schemes in humans (Klauer Zhao, 2004 Carlesimo, Perri, Turriziani, Tomaiuolo, Caltagir hotshot, 2001). much(prenominal) a fractionation of the visuo-spatial working memory is in fair parallelism with evidence in primates of separate processing streams for visual and spatial features of objects (e.g., Goodale Milner, 1992). Indeed, it has been proposed in both primates and humans that the dorsal visual system supports spatial working memory functions, and that the ventral visual system supports visual working memory for features of objects (e.g., Goldman-Rakic, 1987).Evidences for a further fractionation of the visuo-spatial working memory were also reported, suggesting specific brokers of working memory for motor and kinesthetic randomness (Smyth, 1990). A close link mingled with motor systems and visuo-spatial working memory was actually proposed since the very first studies about working memory (Baddeley, Grant, Wight, Thomson, 1975). However, Smyth and her co-workers (Smyth Pendleton, 1989) first off suggested that a specific kinesthetic parcel of working memory exponentiness be responsible for the en crypto graphy and maintenance of remembered patterned movements (those aimed to bring the personify art objects into a specific configuration), whereas positional movements (movements targeted towards specific external spatial stimuli) appear to be encoded and maintained within the visuo-spatial sketchpad.Notwithstanding the evidence well-fixed to a fractionation of the visuo-spatial working memory into multiple components, non inevitably independent one of each other, their relationship with the CBT has been actually scarcely investigated in literature. Though, the complex administration procedure of the CBT makes a more(prenominal) detailed compendium of the processes underlying the CBT strongly needed (Berch, Krikorian, Huha, 1998). More interestingly, and maybe less obviously, the CBT might involve a memory for positional movements, because the administration procedure focuses on the movements of the examiner. However, the contribution of a memory for positional movements in t he CBT task has never been investigated so far. It is also worth noting that computerized, two-dimension CBT versions have been frequently used (e.g., Vandierendonck, Kemps, Fastame, Szmalec, 2004), albeit it is not known whether the standard and the computerized versions of the task are equivalent.The present study aims at investigating the architecture of the visuo-spatial working memory as measured by the CBT, through a crossed double dissociation design (Dunn Kirsner, 1988). We followed a standard dual-task procedure, using four secondary tasks aimed at interfering with the spatial, visual, and motor components of visuo-spatial working memory. They were crossed with collar versions of the CBT a) a standard version, wherein the sequences were given by the experimenter tapping on the blocks in this version of the CBT the hypothetical motor/positional component was fully present b) an automatic version, wherein the sequences were given by the blocks being illuminate in this v ersion the motor/positional component was removed from the task, slice the spatial component was un change c) a two-dimension version, presented on a computer monitor, wherein the sequences were given by the squares on the monitor changing their color in this version, the spatial component of the task was reduced, albeit obviously not eliminated, by requiring the task to be performed on a 2D plane instead than in a 3D space.MethodParticipants. Forty-eight healthy, right gloveed individuals (mean age 22.4 years) participated in the experiment. All the participants reported normal or corrected-to-normal vision, and were nave as to the purposes of the experiment.Stimuli and apparatus. The apparatus was composed of eight translucent fair 3 x 3 x 3 cm blocks, each one containing a red light emitting diode (LED). The blocks were fixed at random positions on a 23 x 30 cm translucent white board.Procedure. Three administration procedures were used. In the standard procedure participants observed the experimenter tapping on the blocks, with his/her baron finger, at a rate of one block per s, lifting the hand straight up before moving it to the next block (Standard). In the second procedure the to-be-remembered sequence was presented by the computer turn on and off the red LEDs in side the blocks, at a rate of one block per s (Automatic). A third, two-dimension version of the CBT was also used, as it is frequently used in literature as a substitute of the standard version. It was composed of eight savory squares appearing on the computer silver screen at the same relative positions as the 3D version set forth above. On each trial, the to-be-remembered sequence was indicated by the blocks changing color from blue to red and again to blue, at a rate of one block per s. The CBT was administered to all the participants according to the three procedures described above, in random order. Participants had to reproduce the sequence immediately after its administration, by tapping on the blocks using their index finger.Sequences from 3 to 9 blocks in length were presented in ascending order, with two trials per length. All the fourteen sequences were administered to each participant. For each subject, different sequences, equated for paths length, were randomly depute to the three versions of the test.Each participant performed each version of the task both alone (single task reason), and along with one of four hang-up conditions (dual task condition), in random order patterned-motor stop, motor snag, spatial interference and visual interference. In the patterned-motor interference condition, participants had to tap with their right index finger on the four corners of a mouse-pad, while the to-be-remembered sequence of blocks was administered. The movement had to be performed right-handed and continuously, at a rate of about one tap per s. Whereas this task is known to interfere with the CBT (Smyth Pelky, 1992), it has both spatial and motor features that makes it difficult to unsnarl their contribution. Thus, to remove the spatial component from this task we added a motor interference condition, wherein participants had to snap fingers with their right hand, while the to-be-remembered sequence of blocks was administered. The movement had to be performed continuously, in a regular manner (one snap per s, approximately). The experimenter commandled for the movement being correctly executed. In the spatial interference condition, participants were required to say aloud the side of each of a series of 1000 Hz tones randomly presented to their unexpended or right ear through headphones, at 30 Db Spl with a constant inter-stimulus interval of 2 s. This listening task is supposed to interfere with the spatial component of the visuo-spatial sketchpad 18. Finally, in the visual interference condition, one of three LEDs placed at the center of the board (one of three dingy circles in the Two-Dimension form) were turned on and off at a rate of one per s. On half the trials the regular sequence was violated, by turning on a differently colored led (on the 3D versions) or displaying a different colored circle (on the 2D version). At the end of each trial, participants were required to say whether a violation occurred on that trial. dozen participants were randomly assigned to the Patterned-motor, Motor, Spatial, and Visual Interference conditions, respectively.The participants performance was measured as the longest sequence that was correctly reproduced at least once (memory span). Performance data were analyzed in a 3x2x4 ANOVA mixed design, with Version (standard, automatic, and two-dimension, within subjects), Condition (single task, dual task, within subjects), and Interference (patterned-motor, motor, spatial, and visual interference, mingled with subjects) as factors.ResultsOne participant in the Spatial Interference condition and two participants in the Visual Interference condition have been e xcluded from the hobby analyses because of the relatively large number of errors committed on the interference tasks. The rest participants performed all the interference tasks at optimal levels, committing less than 3% of errors crossways visual and spatial interference tasks, and maintaining a regular mean rate of finger snapping and spatial tapping of about 1.2 per s. Figure 1 and Table 1 show the mean memory span length for each version of the CBT and for each interference condition.A preliminary sphericity test failed to show any significant violation of the assumptions underlying the Version and the Version by Condition interference effects (p.05 in all cases).The analysis of performance data showed significant main effects of Condition (F1,41=139.93, MSE=.42, p2,82=4.24, MSE=.63, p6,82=3.61, MSE=.63, p6,82=4.33, MSE=.63, p.05 in all cases). This finding ensures that the administration procedure did not affect the difficulty of the task. However, the effects of the four kin ds of interference upon the three versions of the CBT were very specific. Indeed, the patterned-motor and the motor interference tasks touch negatively the standard version of the test (p.5 in both cases). The spatial interference task affected negatively the participants performance at the automatic version of the test (p.05 in both cases). The visual interference task affected negatively the participants performance at the two-dimension version of the test (p.05 in both cases). Importantly, such finding cannot be ascribed to the three interfering tasks being not equivalent with respect to each other, because of the triple dissociation procedure we employed.DiscussionResults of the present experiment suggest that a component of working memory that deals with motor information has the major map in the standard version of the CBT. Indeed, the effects of both the motor and patterned-motor interference tasks were notably larger than those of the spatial and visual interference tasks in the standard version of the CBT. The crossed double dissociation general pattern of results strongly supports this interpretation. Indeed, the spatial interference task was more effective than both the motor interference tasks in the automatic version of the CBT, whereas only the visual interference task was effective in the two-dimension version of the CBT. Such result does not depend on confounding due to the three versions of the CBT being not equated in terms of difficulty, because in the single task condition the performance of the participants was the same in the three versions of the test. Also, it does not depend on the spatial interference task involving a verbal coding of the spatial locations where the tones came from, as the phonological loop has been shown to be not involved in the CBT (e.g., Vandierendonck, Kemps, Fastame, Szmalec, 2004).The finding that the performance on the standard version of the CBT largely depends on individuals coding the movements of the ex aminer is in fair agreement with the hypothesis that a component of working memory that deals with motor information actually exists, and is independent of the component of working memory that deals with spatial information (e.g., Smyth Pendleton, 1990). It is also in fair agreement with the growing body of neurophysiological and psychological studies that suggest a close link between observing and performing an action (e.g., Rizzolatti, Fadiga, Gallese, Fogassi, 1996). Interestingly, van Asselen and coworkers (van Asselen, Kessels, Sebastiaan, Neggers, Kappelle, Frijns, et al. 2006) have deep interpreted results of a study on stroke patients as suggesting that the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) and the right posterior parietal cortex (PPC) are involved in keeping spatial information in memory over a short time period, as was assessed with the CBT. While the involvement of both the DLPFC and the PPC in spatial memory tasks is not new (e.g., Walter, Bretschneider, G roen, Zurowski, Wunderlich, Tomczak, et al. 2003), it is worth noting that this is not at variance with the hypothesis that a specific component of working memory for positional movements is involved in the CBT. For instance, lesion and physiological studies have shown that the DLPFC has a crucial role in visuospatial control of actions and visuomotor transformations (e.g., Curtis DEsposito, 2004). Indeed, Hoshi (Hoshi, 2006) in a recent review suggested that the dorsal part of the DLPFC is involved in representing processed motor information, such as spike use or target location, and in integrating multiple classes of information for planning action. Similarly, the PPC is involved in visuomotor transformation, and is thought to serve as a sensorymotor interface for visually guided eye and limb movements (Buneo Andersen, 2006). Moreover, evidence has been recently provided that, within the fronto-parietal network of brain regions involved in learning spatial sequences, two partia lly segregated neural systems are involved in processing spatial sequences in reaching and navigational space (Nemmi, Boccia, Piccardi, Galati Guariglia, 2013), keep the idea of a further fractionation of visuo-spatial memory into multiple sub-components. Though, more research is needed in order to specify the relationship between the complex functional architecture of the DLPFC PPC system and the specific features of the working memory components, including those measured by the CBT.Finally, it is worth noting that the motor and spatial interference tasks affected only marginally the performance on the two-dimension version of the CBT. Such a result suggests that the two-dimension and the standard versions of the CBT cannot be considered as equivalent. This finding is especially relevant because recently two-dimensions, computerized versions of the CBT have been used rather frequently in clinical and experimental settings (Vandierendonck, Kemps, Fastame, Szmalec, 2004 Joyce, R obbins, 1991).In conclusion, the present study shows that the performance on the Corsi block-tapping taskdepends largely on a component of working memory specifically dealing with motor information and that this component is independent of that component of working memory that deals with spatial information.Beside providing further evidence of a fractionation of visuo-spatial memory into multiple sub-components, present findings have important implications for clinical assessment of brain-damaged patients and should be taken into account when interpreting the performance on the CBT for neuropsychological reclamation treatments in clinical settings.