Children and adults do not differ in response times on REL-2 problems, despite children's higher error rate on those trials¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2009 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? No age differences were observed in RTs across conditions. → Crone Eveline A. 2009

Evidence¶

Crone Eveline A. 2009¶

Crone Eveline A., Wendelken Carter, van Leijenhorst Linda, Honomichl Ryan D., Christoff Kalina, Bunge Silvia A. (2009). Neurocognitive development of relational reasoning. Developmental Science, 12(1), 55-66. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2008.00743.x

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Response-time analysis of the same Age Group x Relational complexity ANOVA during scanning. The article reports "No age differences were observed in RTs, F(2, 58)= 2.08, p = .15"; no effect size was printed, so the null is not evidence of equivalence.

"No age differences were observed in RTs, F(2, 58)= 2.08, p = .15."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Children aged 8-12 are disproportionately less accurate than adults on REL-2 problems requiring integration of two relations, but not on REL-1 or REL-0 problems — related
• Children show initially reduced DLPFC activation relative to adults for REL-1 and REL-2 trials, but sustained DLPFC activation for REL-1 problems in the later trial phase — related
• Adults show sustained RLPFC activation for REL-2 problems, whereas children's early RLPFC differentiation of REL-2 from REL-1 is not sustained across the trial — related
• FIR analysis shows adults sustain DLPFC, RLPFC and superior parietal activation for relational integration through later time-bins, whereas children's integration-specific activation appears only in the first time-bins and late DLPFC activation is tied to REL-1 — related
• The study found no evidence of age differences in relational reasoning performance, possibly due to design choices maximising sensitivity to audience effects — related