Working memory (WM) has been defined as the active maintenance and flexible updating of goal-relevant information in a form that has limited capacity and resists interference. Complex measures of WM recruit multiple subprocesses, making it difficult to isolate specific contributions of putatively independent subsystems. The present study was designed to determine whether neurophysiological indicators of proposed subprocesses of WM predict WM performance. We recruited 200 individuals defined by care-seeking status and measured neural responses using electroencephalography (EEG), while participants performed four WM tasks. We extracted spectral and time-domain EEG features from each task to quantify each of the hypothesized WM subprocesses: maintenance (storage of content), goal maintenance, and updating. We then used EEG measures of each subprocess as predictors of task performance to evaluate their contribution to WM. Significant predictors of WM capacity included contralateral delay activity and frontal theta, features typically associated with maintenance (storage of content) processes. In contrast, significant predictors of reaction time and its variability included contingent negative variation and the P3b, features typically associated with goal maintenance and updating. Broadly, these results suggest two principal dimensions that contribute to WM performance, tonic processes during maintenance contributing to capacity, and phasic processes during stimulus processing that contribute to response speed and variability. The analyses additionally highlight that reliability of features across tasks was greater (and comparable to that of WM performance) for features associated with stimulus processing (P3b and alpha), than with maintenance (gamma, theta and cross-frequency coupling).

Objective

The National Neuropsychology Network (NNN) is a multicenter clinical research initiative funded by the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH; R01 MH118514) to facilitate neuropsychology's transition to contemporary psychometric assessment methods with resultant improvement in test validation and assessment efficiency.

Method

The NNN includes four clinical research sites (Emory University; Medical College of Wisconsin; University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA); University of Florida) and Pearson Clinical Assessment. Pearson Q-interactive (Q-i) is used for data capture for Pearson published tests; web-based data capture tools programmed by UCLA, which serves as the Coordinating Center, are employed for remaining measures.

Results

NNN is acquiring item-level data from 500-10,000 patients across 47 widely used Neuropsychology (NP) tests and sharing these data via the NIMH Data Archive. Modern psychometric methods (e.g., item response theory) will specify the constructs measured by different tests and determine their positive/negative predictive power regarding diagnostic outcomes and relationships to other clinical, historical, and demographic factors. The Structured History Protocol for NP (SHiP-NP) helps standardize acquisition of relevant history and self-report data.

Conclusions

NNN is a proof-of-principle collaboration: by addressing logistical challenges, NNN aims to engage other clinics to create a national and ultimately an international network. The mature NNN will provide mechanisms for data aggregation enabling shared analysis and collaborative research. NNN promises ultimately to enable robust diagnostic inferences about neuropsychological test patterns and to promote the validation of novel adaptive assessment strategies that will be more efficient, more precise, and more sensitive to clinical contexts and individual/cultural differences.