Jason F. Reimer, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
California State University, San Bernardino
5500 University Parkway
San Bernardino, CA 92407
Phone: 909-537-5578
Fax: 909-537-7003
http://web.mac.com/socalfaith/iWeb/JR/Home.html

You may have dropped off your dry cleaning this morning. Have you ever wondered how you will remember to pick up the dry cleaning after a long day of work? What mechanism in your brain helps stop you from following the same route you drive home each day? Current theories of cognition support a working memory mechanism in your brain that holds the information about the dry cleaning as a reminder to yourself. However, not only are you holding the information in working memory, you also have to filter out information throughout the day that is not critical to your current task at work. This mechanism is referred to as cognitive inhibition. As if your brain wasn't doing enough, attention must also be allocated to your current task as well as your memory about the dry cleaning. Attention, cognitive inhibition and working memory are controlled by the part of your brain responsible for executive functioning. For instance, your thoughts about the dry cleaning began with the problem of wrinkles. Then you decide to solve that problem by taking your clothes to the dry cleaner. In order to get the clothes to the dry cleaner you had to plan to drive there before work then make time in your schedule to pick them up on your drive home. Problem solving, planning and organizing these details are incorporated in executive functions.

Over the next few months, Dr. Jason Reimer, Associate Professor at California State University, San Bernardino (CSUSB), will launch a research study to investigate the development of working memory, cognitive inhibition and attention in children. These cognitive functions of third and sixth graders are examined through their performance on computer-based tasks. The 30 minute tasks involve the display of letters, words, or pictures. Later, the performance of the children will be compared to the performance of adults on the same type of computer-based task. Remarkably, this research is based on a model of how aging adults attend to the many messages they receive throughout the day. As adults age they begin to lose the same functions of the brain that children are just beginning to develop.

Over the next two years, a series of four experiments will be conducted with children and adults in the Inland Empire. In previous studies, children from elementary schools throughout Riverside and San Bernardino counties have participated in Dr. Reimer's research. Once approval from teachers, Principals and often Superintendants is received, then parents and children give their approval to participate in the study.

Concurrently, Dr. Thomas Lorsbach, Professor at University of Nebraska, will complete the same experiments with children and adults in Omaha, Nebraska. This study was funded by a grant from National Institutes of Child Health and Human Behavior in conjunction with support from the Department of Psychology and College of Social and Behavioral Sciences at CSUSB.

"The goal is to develop and advance a theory of cognitive control in children to increase our understanding of how children process information in everyday settings," said Dr. Reimer.

Research like Dr. Reimer's is critical to building an understanding of how children at different stages of development receive and comprehend information they receive throughout the day. As you might imagine children receive a multitude of messages throughout the day in the form of sounds, language, words or images, even touch. Dr. Reimer's research will create a picture of how children are receiving some these messages and what information they actually hold in their brain. In order for a teacher to introduce a new subject to her class she/he should understand whether the children will be capable of receiving the new material. The manner by which the subject is taught could affect how well the child remembers or understands the information. Children tend to focus on what they know and have a difficult time concentrating on a new message. The presentation of the new message will impact what about the message is captured by the brain. The model supported by Dr. Reimer's research could influence how professional educators design curriculum or educational programs. Teachers, including parents, should be aware of a child's mental capabilities which depend upon their developmental age.

Furthermore, school psychologists and Special Education programs could utilize this research. Specifically with children diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). As opposed to typical children that have a capacity to focus their attention on a task; these children struggle to remain focused on tasks that are easily managed by children without ADHD. Rather than filtering the important messages from the unimportant, all the messages, from sounds to touch, are bombarding the executive functioning system of a child with ADHD. It is imperative to understand the best way to successfully teach a lesson which accounts for the child's limited attention.

Abstract of Current Research:

Braver and his colleagues (e.g., Braver & Cohen, 2001) have provided a theory that explains the attention, inhibition, and working memory functions of cognitive control in terms of a single underlying context processing mechanism. "Context" here refers to information (e.g., instructions, goals) that allows one to guide and update behavior when performing a task. Because the representation and maintenance of context information are considered to reside within the dorsolateral-prefrontal cortex (DL-PFC) and are regulated by the dopamine neurotransmitter (DA) system, their model suggests that populations with impairments in either or both the DL-PFC and the DA system should demonstrate impaired cognitive control. Our long-term goal is to examine whether developmental differences in context processing may explain age-related improvements in the attention, inhibition, and working memory functions of cognitive control. This goal is based, in part, on the observation that those neuroanatomic structures (DL-PFC and DA systems) that represent and maintain context information are the last to develop in children. The proposed research has four specific aims: (1) to determine whether developmental differences in cognitive control are due to age-related improvements in the ability to represent and/or maintain context information; (2) to determine whether developmental differences in cognitive control vary with the level of demand that is placed upon the ability to represent context information; (3) to determine whether developmental differences in cognitive control vary with the level of demand that is placed upon the ability to maintain context information; and (4) to determine whether developmental differences in context processing may be reduced or eliminated. By identifying developmental patterns of cognitive control within the context processing theory of Braver et al., we hope to enhance our understanding of how cognitive control normally develops in children. In addition, describing the development of cognitive control within a context processing framework may provide an alternate way of interpreting prefrontal dysfunction in developmental disorders (e.g., autism and attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder), and provide new avenues of investigation for those developmental disorders that display consistent problems with cognitive control.

Recent Publications:

Reimer, J. F., Lorsbach, T. C., & Bleakney, D. M. (in press). Automatic semantic feedback during visual word recognition. Memory & Cognition.

Lorsbach, T. C., & Reimer, J. F. (in press). Context processing and cognitive control in children and young adults. Journal of Genetic Psychology.

Reimer, J. F. (2006). Developmental changes in the allocation of semantic feedback during visual word recognition. Journal of Research in Reading, 29 (2), 194-212. PDF

Lorsbach, T. C., & Reimer, J. F. (2005). Feature binding in children and young adults. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 166 (3), 313-327. PDF