Rumination and impaired resource allocation in depression

Abstract

Depression is characterized by a range of cognitive deficits that theorists posit are due to the resource capturing properties of rumination. The present study was designed to examine the relation between rumination and resource allocation in depression. Twenty-five depressed and 25 nondepressed participants completed a modified dual-task version of the recency-probes task, which assesses the controlled allocation of cognitive resources by comparing performance across low- and high-interference conditions. In low-interference conditions, participants performed either the recency-probes task or a tracking task, which required participants to track specific stimuli across trials (i.e., no dual-task interference). In the high-interference condition, participants performed both the recency-probes task and the tracking task, which required the controlled allocation of resources to resolve dual-task interference. Depressed participants performed significantly worse than did their nondepressed counterparts in only the high-interference condition; performance of the 2 groups was comparable in the low-interference conditions. Furthermore, the degree to which depressed participants were impaired in the high-interference condition was correlated .74 with rumination. These findings suggest that an association between rumination and impairments in resource allocation underlies the cognitive difficulties experienced by depressed individuals.

Figure 1

Trial types of the recency-probes paradigm. Within-task interference is created in the recent no-response trials.

Figure 2

The recency-probes paradigm, altered to include a tracking task. The modification results in a dual-task paradigm that approximates goal-pursuit by requiring within-task and cross-task interference resolution and the rerouting of cognitive resources.

Figure 3

The two by two cross-task and rerouting recency-probes dual task design.

Figure 4

Sample category placement condition trials for the ad hoc category: “Things to save in case of fire.”

Figure 5

Mean difference scores for no-response trials across condition for depressed and nondepressed participants. Error bars represent standard error. ^**p < .001.