Archives

  • 2018-07
  • 2018-10
  • 2018-11
  • 2019-04
  • 2019-05
  • 2019-06
  • 2019-07
  • 2019-08
  • 2019-09
  • 2019-10
  • 2019-11
  • 2019-12
  • 2020-01
  • 2020-02
  • 2020-03
  • 2020-04
  • 2020-05
  • 2020-06
  • 2020-07
  • 2020-08
  • 2020-09
  • 2020-10
  • 2020-11
  • 2020-12
  • 2021-01
  • 2021-02
  • 2021-03
  • 2021-04
  • 2021-05
  • 2021-06
  • 2021-07
  • 2021-08
  • 2021-09
  • 2021-10
  • 2021-11
  • 2021-12
  • 2022-01
  • 2022-02
  • 2022-03
  • 2022-04
  • 2022-05
  • 2022-06
  • 2022-07
  • 2022-08
  • 2022-09
  • 2022-10
  • 2022-11
  • 2022-12
  • 2023-01
  • 2023-02
  • 2023-03
  • 2023-04
  • 2023-05
  • 2023-06
  • 2023-07
  • 2023-08
  • 2023-09
  • 2023-10
  • 2023-11
  • 2023-12
  • 2024-01
  • 2024-02
  • 2024-03
  • 2024-04

    • It is important to recognize however that documenting the pr

    2018-11-07

    It is important to recognize, however, that documenting the presence of SES-associated neural effects alone is not sufficient to support this formulation. While lower-SES children may be deprived of certain enriching experiences, they may also have other experiences which are less often considered. For example, researchers have found levels of SES to be related to individual differences not only in such constructs as children’s vocabulary size and reading skill, but also in the ways glycine receptors use language (such as abiding by culturally-prescribed discourse rules), first language (such as learning another language before English), and bilingualism (Hakimzadeh and Cohn, 2007; Wyatt, 1995). These potential confounds complicate the interpretation of SES-related differences in neural function and structure in regions that support language. While it is difficult to avoid reverse inference altogether in neuroimaging studies (Poldrack, 2011), we believe that a more critical investigation of language is needed to advance the cognitive neuroscience of SES.
    Unpacking SES: a multidimensional variable Researchers in psychology and cognitive neuroscience differ considerably in their operationalization of SES (Braveman et al., 2005). Whereas some focus on parental education and occupation, others focus on income, and still others use a composite score that encompasses multiple variables. For the purposes of this review, in discussing particular studies we will use the term SES as each investigator has operationalized it (see Table 1). Several researchers have provided more comprehensive reviews of this variability and its significance within the cognitive neuroscience of SES (D\'Angiulli et al., 2012; Hackman and Farah, 2009; Johnson et al., 2016; Ursache and Noble, 2015). It is clear that there is a need to consider the varying contributions of income, education, and occupation (Duncan and Magnuson, 2012), and to examine the concept of causality in the cognitive neuroscience of SES (Lipina, 2016). In addition, it is important to note that although in many cases researchers have attempted to recruit socioeconomically diverse samples, the families included in these studies nevertheless tend to be skewed toward the higher end of SES. Investigators have consistently documented associations between SES and school performance. Not only are children from lower-SES homes less likely to graduate from college, but those who do graduate are less likely to pursue graduate education or to obtain lucrative employment (Walpole, 2003). In fact, there is evidence that SES-related language difficulties are observable within the first two years of life (Fernald et al., 2012); perhaps not surprisingly, lower-SES children already seem to lag behind their peers in reading readiness by the time they enter school (Coley, 2002). Investigators who have tried to understand this phenomenon have noted large, and likely inter-related, differences between children from high- and low-SES families in their social and physical environments. Compared to the neighborhoods of higher-SES children, lower-SES children tend to grow up in neighborhoods with more concentrated poverty (Desmond, 2016; Sharkey, 2013) that are less safe, and that have fewer resources (Leventhal and Brooks-Gunn, 2000). Their homes are more likely to be crowded and chaotic (Evans et al., 2005), and family members are less likely to have the monetary resources, education, time, or energy to navigate complex systems like healthcare and education (Roscigno and Ainsworth-Darnell, 1999). It is also important to note that in the United States, where the majority of studies of the cognitive neuroscience of SES have been conducted, SES is indelibly tied to race and ethnicity. Between 2007 and 2011, 29% of Blacks and 23% of Hispanics were living below the national poverty line, compared to only 10% of Non-Hispanic Whites (Macartney et al., 2013). Children from racial and ethnic minorities are subjected to harsher disciplinary treatment in school (Okonofua et al., 2016) and have lower academic performance, possibly due in part to stereotype threat (Steele, 1997). In fact, race predicts academic outcomes above and beyond the effects of SES (Sirin, 2005). Importantly, minority families often have different cultural norms, which tend to be particularly pronounced among those whose parents are least integrated into mainstream “white” America (Trueba, 1988). It is crucial, therefore, that researchers be cognizant of the complex interaction of SES with race and ethnicity and how this interaction may contribute to the effects of SES obtained in the literature.