Tanushree Agrawal1, Emily M. Elliott

2, Matthew Calamia

2, Katie Stanko

2, Alyssa De Vito

2, & Katie Cherry

2

1University of California San Diego 2Louisiana State University

Post-Disaster Cognitive Functioning in 2016 Louisiana Flood Victims

Contact: eelliott@lsu.eduThis work is funded by the NSF (2016-2018) & the LSU

Office of Research & Economic Development (2017-2018)

Acknowledgments: We thank Sandro Galea (consultant),

as well as research assistants Masab Mansoor, Allison

McBride, Cayman Loader, Julia Rawls, Jordan

Qaddourah, Lilly LaPlace, Taylor York, Quyen Nguyen,

Victoria Desidare, Brooke Bose, Tim Carroll, Taylor

DelGreco, & Claire Landrieu

Background

• Previous research has shown that there are

decrements in cognitive functioning of

disaster survivors in the stressful periods

following the event1

• Unfortunately, it is incredibly challenging to

obtain data on the cognitive consequences

of disaster-related stress in the aftermath of

natural catastrophes

• One such event was the Great Flood of

2016: 7.1 trillion gallons of water (3x

Katrina) flooded 60,646 homes

• In a two-part longitudinal study, we analyze

these flood victims’ cognitive performance,

asking:

Did disaster stress (and prior disaster

exposure) impact cognitive

functioning, health, & well being during

the recovery phase?

• Here, we report results obtained from the

first wave of data collected on measures of

cognitive functioning.

Methodology

Future Work

• We lay the groundwork for

upcoming analyses assessing

disaster-related stress, sleep, and

mental health impacts on cognitive

functioning.

• These data will serve as a

baseline for comparison across

the different waves of this

longitudinal study.

• Cognitive performance measures

will be systematically compared to

results from prior studies with non-

disaster populations2,3 to determine

whether there are any significant

differences in our sample.

References

1. Cherry, K. E., Brown, J. S., Marks, L. D., Galea, S., Volaufova, J., Lefante, C., ... Jazwinski, S. M.

(2011). Longitudinal assessment of cognitive and psychosocial functioning after Hurricanes

Katrina and Rita: exploring disaster impact on middle-aged, older, and oldest-old adults. Journal

of Applied Biobehavioral Research, 16(3-4), 187–211.

2. Foster, J. L., Shipstead, Z., Harrison, T. L., Hicks, K. L., Redick, T. S., & Engle, R. W. (2015).

Shortened complex span tasks can reliably measure working mem. capacity. Memory &

Cognition, 43(2), 226–236.

3. Jackson, J. D., & Balota, D. A. (2012). Mind-wandering in younger and older adults: Converging

evidence from the sustained att’n to response task and reading for comprehension. Psychology

and Aging, 27(1), 106.

4. Raven, J., Raven, J. C., & Court, J. H. (1998). Manual for Raven’s progressive matrices & vocab.

scales. (1998 ed). Oxford: Oxford Psych.

5. Redick, T. S., Shipstead, Z., Meier, M. E., Montroy, J. J., Hicks, K. L., Unsworth, N., ... Engle, R.

W. (2016). Cognitive predictors of a common multitasking ability: Contributions from working

mem., att’n control, and fluid intelligence. Journal of Exp. Psychology: General, 145(11), 1473.

6. Salthouse, T. A. (2013). Within-cohort age-related differences in cognitive functioning.

Psychological Science, 24(2), 123–130.

7. Unsworth, N., Redick, T. S., Heitz, R. P., Broadway, J. M., & Engle, R. W. (2009). Complex

working memory span tasks and higher-order cognition: A latent-variable analysis of the

relationship between processing and storage. Memory, 17(6), 635–654.

Longitudinal Study: Wave 1 Results

PARTICIPANTS

• Final N = 156 (Screened for cog impairment: MoCA > 24)

• Residents of the greater Baton Rouge area

• A priori categorization into 3 flood severity groups

1. Non-flooded controls

2. Structural damage to homes

3. Structural damage to home & prior

damage during Katrina/Rita

• Tested on complex cognitive tasks, flood-related

stressors, sleep disturbance, & mental well-being

DEPENDENT MEASURES

1. Working Memory2:

2. Fluid Intelligence4,6:

3. Attention / Mind-Wandering3:

(std. scoring conventions2,3,5,7)

COVARIATES: Age, Education, SES

Operation

Span

Rotation

Span

Symmetry

Span

Raven’s

Matrices

Letter

Sets

Shipley

Abstraction

Sustained Attn to

Response (SART)

How does cog. functioning in this community-

drawn sample compare to prior studies?

Are these results a valid baseline for future

comparisons?

• Results follow broad trends seen in prior work

with undergraduate populations

• Performance varies considerably across

participants (higher std. dev. and ranges than in

other studies2,3)

• Significant negative correlations between

complex span scores and error rates in all WM

tasks, as expected

Are there any initial observable

relationships b/w flood stress & cognition? No significant differences in WM, gF,

or Sust. Attention across flood groups

Demographics

• Community-drawn sample varying in

education and income levels

• Diverse range of ages (mean age:

49.3 yrs, range: 18 - 88 yrs)

• 75.6% Female; 91.7% Caucasian

N %

Education

High school or less 14 8.0%

Some college/ specialized training 62 35.4%

College degree 67 38.3%

Master's/doctorate/professional degree 32 18.3%

Marital Status

Married 103 58.9%

Single/Divorced/Widowed 72 41.1%

Income

Less than $1000/month 20 11.4%

Between $1000 and $2000/month 26 14.9%

Between $2000 and $4000/month 49 28.0%

Between $4000 and $6000/month 37 21.1%

Over $6000/month 43 24.6%

Income Adequacy

Less than adequate 36 20.6%

Adequate or better 139 79.4%

Post-Disaster Cognitive Performance

Correlations b/w Standardized Cog. Measures

OpSpan

Operation Span

r(154) = -0.28,

p<0.001

Pro

cessin

g E

rro

rs r(154) = -0.40,

p<0.001

Rotation Span

Pro

cessin

g E

rro

rs

RotSpan

r(154) = -0.37,

p<0.001

Symmetry Span

Pro

cessin

g E

rro

rs

SymmSpan