Cognitive Development (Executive Function)

Question 1

What are they

Answer 1

An umbrella term for those high-level processes that control and organise other mental processes -> Gilbert and Burgess, 2008
EF is exhibited when individuals engages in conscious, goal-directed thought and action under novel or unfamiliar circumstances, where previously established routes for responding are non existent or, as is often the case directly interfere with the desired response -> Carlson et al 2013

Use when making plans for future, voluntarily switching tasks, resits temptation
Allow us to lead independent, purposeful lives
Distinction between route (automatic/well-rehearsed actions e.g. reading a words) vs non-routes (controlled, use of npc well-established stimulus response association, also when we notice an error in our performance)
Can be around selecting which bits of information from the same perceptual input are useful/appropriate to act in different circumstances e.g. colour/letters
Allow flexibility in our behaviours - critical for adaptive functioning
Unlikely they are a single cognitive process
Factor analysis on batteries of EF tests show multiple factors, though they are thought to be correlated
Can we differentiate them?
Behaviourally: frontal lobe damage affects different abilities differently
Biologically: different areas of the frontal lobes are involved in different tasks
3 factors emerge from EF battery tasks
- inhibitory control
- updating/working memory
- shifting
These variables seek to contribute different to being able to pass EF tasks
- suggests they perform different functions that come together to complete a task

Question 2

Inhibitory control

Answer 2

Simple vs implied inhibition -> WM movements
- simple inhibition shown in infancy (delaying eating a treat)
- complete requires holding rule in mind or producing an alternative responses (day/night tasks)
- may also involve conflict (going an answer directly in conflict with automatic responses e.g. day instead of night)
Different cognitive demands for different tasks
- different means children develop at hand game (make fist or finger) between 3 and 4, but 3 and 4 year olds struggle equally with day/night
- could be to do with mode or response: motor vs verbal
- verbal response may also be more automatic than copying someone’s movements (potentially not with mirror neurone research)
With additional WM demands, only 50% of 5-6 year olds
- WM demand of remembering more rules (if there is a star, sort by one rule, if not then another)
- causes perseveration by not integrating rules

Question 3

Updating/working memory

Answer 3

Maintenance and manipulation of information over brief periods
WM requires storage systems to work together with CE to complete tasks
Linear increase in capacity from 4-15 years

More complex tasks directing behaviour toward future goals require more executive function (e.g. backward digit span)
Pursuits would argue storage racks are not true WM tasks
CE co-ordinates multiple tasks being done simultaneously
Adult like structure present by 4
Less executive demanding tasks mastered first
Keeping the task the same and increasing the number of components to be searched leads to later master so seems to be executive component that is developing here

Question 4

Shift

Answer 4

Shit between mental states, rule sets and tasks
Requires inhibitors and WM
3-4 year olds can shift between 2 response set in story form
Unrelated to WM and inhibition in young children
May develop in time with metacognition
Inhibit provisory active sets
Inhibition vs shifting -> shifting requires moving between 2 or more sets (each which may have several rules) rather than inhibiting a single response
Inhibition tasks usually give rules directly whereas shifting tasks require the dedication of rules from feedback

Hughes -> determine one teddy’s favourite shape and then different teddy’s favourite colour
Senn -> might be that shifting can’t be separated from WM or inhibition year in young children. Makes sense that with needing inhibition and WM and pre-requisites
Metacognition -> see speed accuracy trade off. Other children/adults slow response times when shifting set suggesting they understand slowing down will reduce error

Question 5

Hot vs cold EFs

Answer 5

Hot:
- top-down influences in emotionally and motivational significant situations
- more heavily reliant on OFC
- lags behind cold EF in development
- e.g. gambling, delayed gratification, delayed choice
- sees decline in impulse responding with age

Cold”
- traditional tasks
- abstract
- views humans as rational processors
- affectively neutral situations

Hot and cold fully dissociable (can have one in the complete absence of the other)
Hot EF more slowly reflects everyday decision making
Lag is likely due to understand and develop emotion processing as well/manage emotional arousal
Children reach adult-like performance on hot EF tasks later than cold
Lines up with tantrums in children when not getting their own way immediately finishing with age because they begin to be able to control their emotions

Question 6

Models of Ef

Answer 6

How can we explain EFs in terms of biological and cognitive models ?

Question 7

Biological

Answer 7

“Somewhat embarrassing zone of almost total ignorance” -> Monsell, 1996
Frontal loves - Gilbert and Burgess (2008)
Stronger interconnection between PFC and other structures and system
- means PFC well placed to integrate information and control of other systems
Phineas Gage
- wide ranging symptom following frontal lob damage
- can be on their own or in different combinations
- impulsivity and failures to pursue goals over long periods of time, 2 most common difficulties
- also get perseveration -> how can these be reconciled in the long term

Question 8

Norman and Shalliece (1988)

Answer 8

Behaviour controlled by schema (triggered by incoming perceptual information)
Activity of these schemas modulated by EFs of supervisory system in non-routine situations. Supervisory system, has interaction sub-systems
When supervisory system is damaged, it is less likely yo be able to overuse automatic. schemas so automatically selected schemas is likely to win out. Make behaviour more rigidify
If the task is not stronger cued by environment then inappropriate behaviour may be triggered by salient par of the environment then supervisory system is less than adequate -> more distractibility

Question 9

Duncan (2001)

Answer 9

Task-specific responses in lateral PFC in single cell recording in monkeys and PET in humans
PFC neurones seem to be adapting to carry specific signals depending on the ask the monkey’s area doing
Suggests coding in PFC might be adaptive and combine WM, attention and control
Would influence how we map functions and specialisations in PFC
Adaptive coding mode
Neurones vary slightly in selectivity for objects and location (height on curve), modulates by task type on object sensitivity higher in object tasks and vice versa
PFC seems to be able to use this kind of selectivity to adapt its functioning to suit the task in hand

Question 10

Models of EF

Answer 10

Other theories suggest that high level representations need to be learned
Consistency that high-level processes modulates low-level ones depending on the track demands
Different regions of the PFC do seem to be involved in different tasks
- VLPFC - simple tasks e.g. STM
- DLPFC - manipulating information/making plans
- RPFC - high level human abilities

Question 11

Cognitive

Answer 11

Tripartite structure
Tests laid into 3 factors
- inhibition
- working memory
- shifting
Can’t discount some overarching elements that acts in a meta-meta-cognitive way and controls all of these factors, but 3 factor solution seems to be best shift (can’t discount the because factors are correlated with each other)
More recently accepted as 2 factor structure with WK and shifting
Inhibition measures are spread across the other factors -> Miyake and Friedman 2012
Could this common EF that lands onto both factors be a step closer to discovering what the meta-meta-cognitive component is

Question 12

EF Tests

Answer 12

Require additional processing on top of automatic processing’s
Might need to inhibit response/manipulate information before giving answer e.g. delay or interferences/with between automatic responses for different circumstances/develop a new strategy/initiate if given no instructions (planning)
Consider: are we tapping what we think we are tapping? Is 1st test tapping multiple EFs. Task complexity and accessibility. Might lack ecological validity

Question 13

Wisconsin car sort/DCSS

Answer 13

Assessing inferring rules, creating sets based on abstract categories and attention switching
Children under 4 and those with frontal love damage tend to persist with old rule
Reductions in pervenations at 3-4 years
Trials inkling switch take longer
DCCS = dimension change card sort
Ppt works out from experimenter’s response to their actions wha the rule is
Once learned, the rule chan get without ppt being told
Ppt has to work out new rule, reject old one and sort cards according to new rule
Children told which rule to use in DCCS
Longer time frame for new rule suggests executive control required

Question 14

Trial making

Answer 14

A - just numbers/letters
B - number-letter sequence
Assessing working memory and task switching
Using B-A we can understand th sole contributions of executive components

Question 15

Stroop

Answer 15

Colour of the writing indeed whilst ignoring the word itself
Slower responses when word and ink colour do not match
Executive control, needed to override automatic response to read words
Simplified versions available for use with young children

Question 16

Tower of London

Answer 16

Ability to plan and sequence behaviour
Inability to solve problems, taking more moves than necessary and starting impulsively before planning indicate executive dysfunction
Start star and end state down
Ppt must sequence behaviour to get from start to end to stay in as few moves as possible

Question 17

Tower of Hanoi

Answer 17

Ability to plan and sequence behaviour
Very similar to Tower of London
Cannot stack larger discs and smaller ones

Question 18

NIH toolbox cognition battery

Answer 18

Ages 3-85
Assesses normal functioning
Brief
Freely available
Normal functioning, not disorder
CB measures
- Flanker inhibitory control and attention sets
- Dimensional change card sort test

Question 19

NEPSY

Answer 19

Assesses neurocogntive abilities in pre-schoolers, children and adolescents
Attention and executive functioning subsets
3-16 years
Standardised and called scores available

Question 20

Development of EF

Answer 20

Young children often act in opposite way to those with good EFs so when do they develop?
What what’s of things do you see children beginning to be able to do that suggests their EFs are developing?
Impulsive, innovative, difficulty holding things in mind
Not purposeful, not planning, not gaol directed
Dramatic improvement over preschool years
Steadier improvement into adolescence
2 different EF tasks showing similar progression
Development over middle childhood seems to be increased control of attention efficiency flexibility and organisation of complex problems
Children can focus their attention around distractions more effectively by middle childhood
Peek around 25 and then gradually declines
Tripartite structure appears to be in place by middle childhood
More recently accepted as factor structure with WM and shifting
Inhibition measures are spread across other factors
Research with preschool children find a one factor solution fits best -> Wiebe 2008
Progression from unitary to distant component structure in later childhood could be reflexive of increasing specialisations
Over 2-5 years, develop their ability to use rules
Multiple rules held in mind at once and switching between them
Errors in younger children seems to be in preservation when they issue on sorting car (go with the box they put it in before)
Ability to hold rules in mind for longer improves with age
In line with performance improvements in EF tasks
Performance seem to improve on multiple different tasks
Infants receive hidden objects by 7-8 months
Takes longer delay for infants
A not B errors
- toy hidden repeatedly at A
- infant reach for toy at A
- when toy hidden at B, infants reach for A again
- older infants get, longer delay is necessary for the to make A to B errors
- shows evidence in perseveration that tends to be able to overcome for longer periods in older infants
- also show capacity to shift to new task rules with age and potentially development in WM (remembering where that toy is over a delay)

Bullock and Lütkenhaus
26 month olds show more outcome oriented behaviour than 20 month olds
32 month olds accomplish more correct outcomes than 26 month olds
26 month olds stop once the task is completed more often than younger children

Question 21

What do they relate to?

Answer 21

EFs seem to be relates to other outcomes over the longer term

Question 22

Social skills

Answer 22

Self control is predicative of criminal behaviour, substance abuse and low SES in adulthood
Suppression/overdoing of competing responses is disrupted in conduct disorder
EF abilities at 2 years old are predictive of theory of mind a 3 years old, specifically inhibition and WM
But the link with social understanding sees to be culture dependent
- relationships in Chinese cultures not the same as relationships found in Western cultures

Question 23

Academic ability

Answer 23

Predictive of language development
Predictive of maths development
Set shining, inhibitory control and general executive behaviour count of variance in early maths achievement
Inhibitory control positively associated with reading, writing and maths achievement
More specific predictions suggest it may be certain elements of EF that are involved in different academic abilities
May relate to underlying taks demands of academic taks
WM is the only EF predictor to achievement at 15 years old when measures at 54 months
Suggestions that processing speed during EF tasks may also be relevant to predictive relationships
But what about intelligence?
Suggestions we need more developmentally sensitive inhibition an attention measures
Could it be WM is encompassing a number of different EF components by age 15?
Suggesting of processing speed could also play into WM involvement as processing speed also affects WM

Question 24

Intelligence

Answer 24

Updating is highly correlated with intelligence measures In adults, but shifting or inhibition are not
Updating highly correlated with both fluid and crystallised intelligence (in adult) but shifting and inhibiting aren’t
But in children, a one-factor structure of EF is predicted by both fluid and crystallised intelligence
Gifted children out perform other children on executive measures
Could it be their performance on executive measures that given gifted children their advantage on intelligence measures?

Question 25

Garon, Byrson and Smith (2008) -> executive function in preschoolers: a review using an integrative framework

Answer 25

--- Introduction --- EFs are goal directed cognitive processes that allow individuals to - inhibit automatic processes - hold and manipulate information - flexibility shift attnetion and behaviour Strongly linked to PFC, one of slowest maturing brain regions Systematic research open preschool Eg has expanded only in last 2 decades, largely due to development of child appropriate tasks Key challenge - many EF tasks are complex and multi-component, among it difficult to determine which EF process is actually being measures, especially in young children --- Theoretical framework --- Adopts Miyake et al's (2000) integrative EF model, proposes that EF consists of three partially dissociable components 1. WM 2. response Inhibiton 3. set shifting (cogntive flexibility) - components are moderately correlates suggesting a common underlying mechanism, like executive attnetion or conflict resolution Integrates earlier theories that viewed Ef as - either unitary (e.g. CE or attention system) - componential (separate EF processes with distinct developmental trajectories) -- Methods (review approach) --- Narrative integrative review - Ppts - - infants, toddlers and preschoolers (focus of 3-5_ - evidcen drawn from cross sectional and longitudinal studies - Materials/tasks - Synthesises findings from wide range of age-appropriate EF tasks, including - Working memory: delayed response tasks, span tasks, self-ordered point - Inhibiton: delay of gratification, gift delay, bear and dragon, anti saccade - shifting: a not b, spatial reversal, DCCS - Procedure - - tasks are typically adapted from adult EF paradigms - studies vary widely in strcutre (naturalistic vs highly structured) - performance is measured using accuracy, delay tolerance, reaction time, or error patterns - Data analysis - Evidence includes - behavioural performance trends - developmental comparisons across ages - factor-analytic findings (from prior studies) The authors integrate behavioural data with neuroscientific and attentional models --- Central role of attention --- Core argument is that attnetion development underpins EF development Key points - selective attnetion is present early in infancy but is initially stimulus-driven - the anterior attention system (executive attnetion) develops slowly from infancy through the preschool years - major improvements in -> sustained attention -> voluntary control -> conflict resolution - occur between 3-6 Argues - improvements in EF during preschool are driven less by the emergence of new components and more by the integration and coordination of existing ones via attention --- EF components: findings --- 1. working memory Simple working memory (holding information over a delay): - emerges before 6 months - capacity (number of items and delay duration) increased steadily through preschool and beyond Complex working memory (updating/manipualting information: - develops later (second year onward) - shows marked imrpvoments between ages 3-5 - includes tasks like self-ordered pointing and backward span Conclusions - complex working memory reflects CE attnetion - development depends heavily on attentional control 2. response inhibition The most extensively studies EF component in preschoolers Simple inhibition (suppressing dominant response) - evident in infancy (e.g. don't paradigm) - improves steadily through preschool years Complex inhibition (holding a rule in mind while inhibiting a response) - tasks like bear and dragon, Simon Says - show strong age related improvement from 3-5 euyats - often show rapid gains around age 3 Factor-analytic and behavioural evidence suggests - simple and complex inhibition are related but distinct - complex inhibition places additional demands on working memory and attnetion 3. shifting (cognitive flexibility) Involves - abandoning previously successful rule - adopting a new one Key tasks - a not b - spatial reversal - DCCS Findings - younger preschoolers often perseverate - around age 4, children become increasingly able to -> represent conflicting rules -> shift flexibility between them Shifting is especially dependant on - conflict resolution - integration of attnetion and working memory --- Discussion --- Across components, argue that - EF development is gradual and integrative, not modular or stage like - components do not devleop in parallel - the most dramatic changes during preschool reflect -> improved attention control -> better coordination among EF components The review reconciles competing theory by showing that - EF is both unified and differentiated - pre-school EF reflects a developing system, not a fully formed adult architecture