Attention: All That Matters

The role of attention in learning is a topic of great interest to both researchers and clinicians alike when it comes to the discussion of the causes of learning difficulties in children (Posner & Rothbart, 2007). Attention plays a crucial role in learning, since if you cannot attend you cannot commit stimuli to memory and consequently comprehend it (Styles, 2006). It is the very starting point for obtaining and processing information. It also happens to be one of the most poorly understood and often downright misunderstood cognitive processes.

So today I wanted to share some information regarding attention basics in order to foster a bit of clarity on this highly complex subject.

Simply put, attention is a cognitive process that allows us to selectively focus on specific stimuli (information, actions, etc) while filtering out irrelevant distractions. It includes the following components:

• Alertness or one’s ability to maintain a state of readiness to detect and respond to incoming stimuli. It allows individuals to maintain adequate levels of arousal and vigilance. Alertness is controlled by the reticular activating system in the brain, which is responsible for maintaining wakefulness and readiness (Berridge & Waterhouse, 2003; Steriade & McCarley, 2005; Posner & Rothbart, 2007; Posner, 2008).
• Orientation is one’s ability to selectively focus attention on specific stimuli. It is regulated by the parietal cortex and the superior colliculus regions of the brain. Orientation allows us to direct attention toward the most important information at a particular moment and avoid distractions (Corbetta, Kincade, & Shulman, 2002; Müri & Nyffeler, 2008).  It enables us to quickly recognize and absorb as well as respond to feedback and adjust our learning strategies accordingly (Awh, Vogel, & Oh, 2006; Chun & Turk-Browne, 2007).
• Executive Control is the ability to deliberately direct attention and control thoughts and actions. It allows us to inhibit distracting information, shift attention between tasks, and maintain attention over long periods of time. It is regulated by the prefrontal and the anterior cingulate cortices of the brain, respectively (Miller & Cohen, 2001; Banich, 2009)

Several aspects of attention play a critical role in facilitating learning:

• Selective Attention, for the purpose of information selection, allows us to focus on the task at hand and ignore distractions in our environment. By prioritizing essential input, we as learners can better process new content and form a deeper understanding of the subject matter. (Gazzaley & Nobre, 2012; Rerko & Oberauer, 2013; Lavie, Beck, & Konstantinou, 2014)
• Sustained Attention (Vigilance) allows us to consistently maintain focus on a task or stimulus over a long period of time in a continuous fashion. It allows us to stay engaged with educational material for extended periods, increasing our likelihood of retaining information. It is particularly important when learning complex or detailed academic subjects that require considerable mental effort (Esterman, et al, 2013; Thomson, Besner & Smilek, 2015).
• Divided Attention (Multitasking) allows us to allocate attention across multiple tasks simultaneously and effectively without neglecting any particular task. It enables us to balance taking notes while listening to a lecture or monitor multiple sources of information (Tombu & Jolicœur, 2003; Wickens, 2008; Gazzaley & Nobre, 2012).
• Alternating Attention (Cognitive Flexibility) refers to our ability to switch focus between tasks and change the level or type of required attention, in situations when different tasks need to be performed in sequence. Alternating attention allows us to adapt to changing demands and switch between various subjects as needed. This is crucial for keeping up with fast-paced learning environments, acquiring different skills, and promoting critical thinking (Chun, Golomb & Turk-Browne, 2011; Esterman, et al, 2013; Rerko & Oberauer, 2013).
• Attentional (or Executive) Control allows us to set goals, plan, prioritize tasks, allocate attention strategically, and maintain focus in complex, quickly-changing learning environments to achieve our learning objectives. When we consciously direct and coordinate our attention, we can better focus on specific outcomes and increase our chances of success ( Braver, 2012; Miyake & Friedman, 2012; Banich, 2009)

Now that we have reviewed some of these common attention-related terms, let us move on to the attention-related difficulties in children with language and learning needs.

Consider the following. How many times have you heard a variation of the following statements as related to students’ testing performance:

1. “You can’t really test them because they are so inattentive“
2. “They are not really attending so you need to stop testing”
3. “They did poorly on this test because of their inattention“
4. “I attribute the student’s inattention during testing to ADHD“

The fact is that children with language and literacy needs have comorbid attentional difficulties causing them significant challenges in their ability to focus, process, comprehend, and retain information (Ebert & Kohnert, 2011; Henry, Messer, & Nash, 2012; Gooch et al, 2014).

So what are some causes of attentional deficits in children with language and literacy needs?

For starters, they process oral and written information differently from their typically developing peers. They present with challenges following directions, understanding context, or processing complex syntax. Their lack of comprehension often leads to frustration as well as difficulty maintaining attention to complex stimuli (Scott & Windsor, 2000; St. Clair, 2011; Lum, et al, 2012; Hsu & Bishop, 2014).

Another reason is the increase in cognitive load or cognitive demands. Children with language and literacy disorders have to expend more cognitive effort to process linguistic input, which frequently makes them fatigued and overwhelmed. This extensive effort will adversely impact their attentional resources, making it more difficult for them to maintain focus on learning (Just & Carpenter, 1992; Sweller & Chandler, 1994; Paas, Renkl, & Sweller, 2003; Gerjets, Scheiter, & Cierniak, 2009).

Yet another equally important reason is working memory limitations. This, highly heterogenous group of children, presents with deficits not just in linguistic processing but in nonlinguistic processing, as well. These include (but are certainly not limited to) working memory deficits, including their ability to hold and manipulate information for brief periods of time, which in turn adversely impacts their attention span (Marton & Schwartz, 2003; Archibald & Gathercole, 2007).

Last (for the purpose of this post) but not least, let’s not forget that children with language and literacy needs present with social-emotional challenges (pragmatics is an area of language) due to difficulty understanding and producing language in social contexts. This often leads to feelings of frustration, anxiety, loneliness, and/or despair all of which contribute to reduced attention to learning (Rice, Sell, & Hadley, 1991; McCabe & Meller, 2004; Conti-Ramsden & Botting, 2004; Durkin & Conti-Ramsden, 2007).

So the next time you hear from someone questionable statements about the student’s attention, don’t be so hasty in accepting them at face value. Such statements don’t carry any usefulness and are often made to either minimize someone’s language and literacy struggles or to even deny them related services based on a lack of knowledge of what can be done in such situations therapeutically.

After all these students’ testing performance is not an isolated occurrence but rather a daily struggle. Consequently, blaming their daily struggles on inattention or ADHD when these struggles directly adversely impact academics and social interactions is not helpful in the least. Instead, it makes far more sense to analyze the linguistic underpinnings of the students’ difficulties during the testing performance in order to create meaningful and functional goals to improve their performance. While it is true that attention cannot be targeted in isolation to improve language and literacy performance, actually working explicitly on language and literacy does indeed improve attention in an evidence-based manner (Melby-Lervåg, Redick, & Hulme, 2016; Hjetland et al 2020). So while inattention causes significant learning challenges, effectively intervening in language and literacy deficit target areas, will indirectly improve attention and focus, and will directly result in better academic and social performance as well as improved outcomes.

References:

1. Archibald, L. M., & Gathercole, S. E. (2007). Short-term and working memory in specific language impairment. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 42(6), 675-693.
2. Awh, E., Vogel, E. K., & Oh, S. H. (2006). Interactions between attention and working memory. Neuroscience, 139(1), 201-208.
3. Banich, M. T. (2009). Executive function: The search for an integrated account. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 28(2), 151-156.
4. Berridge, C. W., & Waterhouse, B. D. (2003). The locus coeruleus-noradrenergic system: modulation of behavioral state and state-dependent cognitive processes. Brain Research Reviews, 42(1), 33-84.
5. Braver, T. S. (2012). The variable nature of cognitive control: a dual mechanisms framework. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(2), 106-113.
6. Chun, M. M., & Turk-Browne, N. B. (2007). Interactions between attention and memory. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 17(2), 177-184.
7. Chun, M. M., Golomb, J. D., & Turk-Browne, N. B. (2011). A taxonomy of external and internal attention. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 73-101.
8. Conti-Ramsden G, Botting N. (2004) Social difficulties and victimization in children with SLI at 11 years of age. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 47(1):145-61
9. Corbetta, M., Kincade, J. M., & Shulman, G. L. (2002). Neural systems for visual orienting and their relationships to spatial working memory. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 14(3), 508-523.
10. Corbetta, M., & Shulman, G. L. (2002). Control of goal-directed and stimulus-driven attention in the brain. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 3(3), 201-215.
11. Cowan, N. (2001). The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(1), 87-185.
12. Dockrell, J. E., Lindsay, G., Connelly, V., & Mackie, C. (2007). Constraints in the production of written text in children with specific language impairment. Exceptional Children 73(2):147-164
13. Durkin, K., & Conti-Ramsden, G. (2007). Language, social behavior, and the quality of friendships in adolescents with and without a history of specific language impairment. Child development, 78(5), 1441-1457.
14. Ebert, K. D., & Kohnert, K. (2011). Sustained attention in children with primary language impairment: A meta-analysis. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 54(5), 1372-1384.
15. Esterman, M., Noonan, S. K., Rosenberg, M., & DeGutis, J. (2013). In the zone or zoning out? Tracking behavioral and neural fluctuations during sustained attention. Cerebral Cortex, 23(11), 2712-2723.
16. Fortenbaugh, F. C., DeGutis, J., & Esterman, M. (2017). Recent theoretical, neural, and clinical advances in sustained attention research. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1396(1), 70-91.
17. Gazzaley, A., & Nobre, A. C. (2012). Top-down modulation: Bridging selective attention and working memory. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(2), 129-135.
18. Gerjets P., Scheiter K., Cierniak G. (2009). The scientific value of cognitive load theory: A research agenda based on the structuralist view of theories. Educational Psychology Review, 21, 43–54.
19. Gooch, D., Hulme, C., Nash, H., & Snowling, M. (2014). Comorbidities in preschool children at a family risk of dyslexia. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 55(3), 237-246.
20. Hjetland, H.N., Brinchmann, E.I., Scherer, R., Hulme, C., & Melby-Lervåg, M. (2020). Preschool pathways to reading comprehension: A systematic meta-analytic review. Educational Research Review.
21. Henry, L. A., Messer, D. J., & Nash, G. (2012). Executive functioning in children with specific language impairment. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 53(1), 37-45.
22. Hsu, H. J., & Bishop, D. V. M. (2014). Sequence learning in syntax: Evidence from eye-tracking during reading. Developmental Science, 17(6), 877–891.
23. Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological review, 99(1), 122-149.
24. Lavie, N. (2005). Distracted and confused?: Selective attention under load. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(2), 75-82.
25. Lavie, N., Beck, D. M., & Konstantinou, N. (2014). Blinded by the load: attention, awareness, and the role of perceptual load. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 369(1641), 20130205.
26. Lum, J. A. G., Conti-Ramsden, G., Page, D., & Ullman, M. T. (2012). Working, declarative and procedural memory in specific language impairment. Cortex, 48(9), 1138–1154.
27. Marton, K., & Schwartz, R. G. (2003). Working memory capacity and language processes in children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 46(5), 1138-1153.
28. McCabe, P. C., & Meller, P. J. (2004). The Relationship Between Language and Social Competence: How Language Impairment Affects Social Growth. Psychology in the Schools, 41(3), 313–321
29. Melby-Lervåg, M., Redick, T. S., & Hulme, C. (2016). Working memory training does not improve performance on measures of intelligence or other measures of “far transfer”: Evidence from a meta-analytic review. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(4), 512–534.
30. Miller, E. K., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). An integrative theory of prefrontal cortex function. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 24, 167-202.
31. Miyake, A., & Friedman, N. P. (2012). The nature and organization of individual differences in executive functions: Four general conclusions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21(1), 8-14.
32. Mudrik, L., Faivre, N., & Koch, C. (2014). Information integration without awareness. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18(9), 488-496.
33. Müri, R. M., & Nyffeler, T. (2008). Neurophysiology and neuroanatomy of reflexive and volitional saccades as revealed by lesion studies with neurological patients and transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). Brain and Cognition, 68(3), 284-292.
34. Paas F., Renkl A., Sweller J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38, 1–4.
35. Posner, M. I. (2008). Measuring alertness. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1129(1), 193-199.
36. Posner, M. I., & Rothbart, M. K. (2007). Research on attention networks as a model for the integration of psychological science. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 1-23.
37. Rerko, L., & Oberauer, K. (2013). Focused, unfocused, and defocused information in working memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39(4), 1075-1096.
38. Rice, M. L., Sell, M. A. & Hadley, P. A. (1991). Social interactions of speech and language-impaired children. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 34(6):1299-307.
39. Rueda, M. R., Rothbart, M. K., McCandliss, B. D., Saccomanno, L., & Posner, M. I. (2005). Training, maturation, and genetic influences on the development of executive attention. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102(41), 14931-14936.
40. Steriade, M., & McCarley, R. W. (2005). Brainstem control of wakefulness and sleep. Springer Science & Business Media.
41. Scott, C. M., & Windsor, J. (2000). General language performance measures in spoken and written narrative and expository discourse of school-age children with language learning disabilities. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 43(2):324-39.
42. St. Clair, M. C., Pickles, A., Durkin, K., & Conti-Ramsden, G. (2011). A longitudinal study of behavioral, emotional and social difficulties in individuals with a history of specific language impairment (SLI). Journal of Communication Disorders, 44(2), 186–199.
43. Styles, E. A. (2006). The psychology of attention. Psychology Press.
44. Sweller J., Chandler P. (1994). Why some material is difficult to learn. Cognition and Instruction, 12, 185–233.
45. Thomson, D. R., Besner, D., & Smilek, D. (2015). A resource-control account of sustained attention: Evidence from mind-wandering and vigilance paradigms. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(1), 82-96.
46. Tombu, M. N., & Jolicœur, P. (2003). A central capacity sharing model of dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29(1), 3-18.
47. Wickens, C. D. (2008). Multiple resources and mental workload. Human Factors, 50(3), 449-455.