*********************************
There is now a CONTENT FREEZE for Mercury while we switch to a new platform. It began on Friday, March 10 at 6pm and will end on Wednesday, March 15 at noon. No new content can be created during this time, but all material in the system as of the beginning of the freeze will be migrated to the new platform, including users and groups. Functionally the new site is identical to the old one. webteam@gatech.edu
*********************************
Name: John Price
Ph.D. Dissertation Defense meeting
Date: Monday, August 29th, 2022
Time: 3 PM
Location: https://gatech.zoom.us/my/verhaeghen?pwd=SlBQNEN1Q1dndkJiOE1TSGZKN1ZZZz09
Advisor: Paul Verhaeghen, Ph.D. (Georgia Tech)
Dissertation Committee Members:
Randall Engle, Ph.D. (Georgia Tech)
Eric Schumacher, Ph.D. (Georgia Tech)
Susan Embretson, Ph.D. (Georgia Tech)
Jutta Joormann, Ph.D. (Yale)
Title: Dysphoria, Depressive Rumination, and Working Memory
Abstract:
Current research on depression and rumination has produced mixed and sometimes incongruent results. Some researchers have found evidence of general cognitive deficits, while others have found evidence of only mood-congruent cognitive deficits. Recent research on deficits in working memory (WM) has indicated that general WM deficits occurred in a reading span task after people suffering from depression were exposed to mood congruent stimuli in a modified reading span task (affective transfer, Hubbard et al. 2016). However, the precise nature of these WM deficits remains unclear. The present study examined these effects with the decomposition of a modified n-back task into its component parts: WM updating and focus switching. Whether depression, depressive rumination, and mood were predictive of updating and focus switching was assessed. This study employed 52 participants split into two groups: a control group who completed only non-emotional tasks over two sessions, and an experimental group, who completed first a set of emotional tasks, followed by a set of non-emotional tasks. In this way, performance in the set 2 tasks was compared based on whether the participants were in the emotional or non-emotional group in set 1. This, effectively, is an extension of the affective transfer effect of Hubbard et al. (2016) to see if updating costs or switch costs or both are the driving cause of affective transfer. Furthermore, this study examined whether there were general or mood congruent WM deficits in the emotional set 1 task for these updating and focus switch costs. Affective transfer should have occurred in at least one of WM updating or focus switching, for individuals with elevated depressive symptoms, especially those who concurrently tended to engage in depressive rumination. It did not. Furthermore, elevated depression and depressive rumination were not predictive of general nor of mood-congruent deficits in WM updating or focus switching.
