Selective attention is related to a range of cognitive abilities, including executive function (Lawson et al., 2014).Orienting attention to visual and auditory targets are component skills inherent in many cognitive assessments, making it oftendifficult to parse cognitive capacities from selective attention abilities.The fundamental, early-developing nature of somatosen-sory processing (Saby et al., 2015) make it a compelling sensory domain within which to study top-down attentional processes.This presentation describes the initial results of a study examining how the electrophysiological indicators of selective atten-tion, specifically the ability to focus attention on tactile stimuli, relate to children’s executive function. Results will parse therelations between a composite of executive function tasks and the EEG mu rhythm response of participants when anticipatingtactile stimulation of the hand. The implications of individual differences in somatosensory selective attention are discussed inlight of cognitive assessment design, SES-related discrepancies in attention, and bodily awareness.

Children’s ability to direct attention to salient stimuli is a key aspect of cognitive functioning. Here we examined the magnitude and lateralization of EEG indices during somatosensory anticipation elicited by a left or right directional cue indicating the bodily location of an upcoming tactile stimulus. In 50 children aged 6-8 years, somatosensory anticipation was accompanied by anticipatory negativity and alpha mu rhythm desynchronization at contralateral central electrode sites (C3 and C4) overlying the hand area of the somatosensory cortex. Individual differences in these contralateral brain responses during somatosensory anticipation were associated with scores on a flanker task of executive function. The results suggest that processes involved in directing attention in the tactile modality may overlap with those involved in broader executive function abilities.

Among the popular press, excessive smartphone usage is often broadcast as being associated with adverse outcomes, in-cluding greater risk taking, poor social adjustment, and impaired cognitive functioning. However, there is scant empiricalevidence that supports these claims. Our study investigated whether the duration of smartphone ownership (exposure)affects smartphone usage pattern (screen-time), and whether their interaction is associated with risk-taking behavior (Ben-thin Risk Perception questionnaire). We found that those with lower screen-time reported engaging in a higher frequencyof risky activities like vandalism of property, B = -4.80, SE = 1.65, t = -2.91, p ¡ 0.01. Screen-time was inversely asso-ciated with risk taking among individuals characterized by less exposure, B=4.66, SE=2.01, t=2.32, p=0.03. Altogether,these early findings illustrate how the impact of screen-time on real-life behaviors may not be as one-sided as mass mediaportrays.

The ability to anticipate, attend and respond appropriately to specific stimuli is involved in the execution of everyday tasks. The current investigation examined the relations between cognitive skills measured by the NIH Toolbox and changes in the power of mu oscillations during anticipation of and in response to a tactile stimulus. Electroencephalographic (EEG) activity was measured after a visuospatial cue directed adults (n=40) to monitor their right or left hand for upcoming tactile stimulation. In the 500 ms prior to the onset of the tactile stimulus, a desynchronization was apparent 8 – 14 Hz at contralateral central sites, consistent with prior investigations of mu rhythm; a widespread synchronization was apparent in the 250 ms proceeding delivery of the tactile stimulus. The extent of contralateral reduction in mu power was associated with speed processing ability, while ipsilateral mu power was associated with flanker performance and marginally correlated with card sort performance. Regression further probe the significance and specificity of these effects. Increases in mu power following onset of the tactile stimulus were not associated with any behavioral measures. Mu modulation during attention to a specific bodily location appears related to variability in the broader ability to regulate behavior in a goal- directed manner, and perhaps to speed of stimulus processing.