# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
New to SMARTS? Watch the walkthrough video below to get started. If you are having trouble accessing your lessons, please email [email protected] for assistance.

Looking for some Executive Function video resources? Check out our YouTube playlist

Full Access users, click LOGIN in the menu if you don't see blue ACCESS buttons below

Unit 1: Introduction to Executive Function Strategies: Building a Community of Metacognitive Learners

WELCOME This unit is designed to teach students the importance of metacognition, provide background knowledge of the core executive function processes, and help them to apply their knowledge of executive function processes to better understand themselves as learners.
Unit 1 provides a foundation for teaching the Executive Function curriculum. Each lesson builds students' understanding of EF strategies and links these strategies to the academic demands of middle school, high school, and college.
IMPORTANT: Be sure to watch the Overview Instructional Videos.
These videos are not just the overview for Unit 1 but an essential foundation for teaching the entire SMARTS curriculum. It is important to take the time to watch these videos before teaching the SMARTS lessons so you have a good understanding of the SMARTS educational system.
Unit 1 Overview
Click on the blue buttons below to access each lesson.

Unit 2: Goal Setting: Understanding the Big Picture and Breaking it Down

Objectives: By the end of this unit students will be able to:

Define CANDO goals

Understand the elements of "good goals"

Create a rubric to assess goals

Design CANDO goals that demonstrate reflective thinking

Unit 2 Overview

Click on the blue buttons below to access each lesson.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Executive Function Curriculum for Secondary Grades - SMARTS

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
New to SMARTS? Watch the walkthrough video below to get started. If you are having trouble accessing your lessons, please email [email protected] for assistance. Looking for some Executive Function video resources?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
By Peg Dawson, Ed.D with Eve Kessler, Esq.

Have you ever wondered why adolescence is characterized by change, confusion, high emotions, and impulsive decision-making? It's largely a function of brain development: The part of the brain responsible for decision-making (the frontal lobe) is still evolving, and will continue to do so until about age 25. Consequently, the ability for adolescents to make mature judgments is often overwhelmed by "gut" instincts rather than guided by thoughtful reasoning.

Everyone with ADHD has an executive function disorder, but so do many without attention deficits.

Thanks in part to underdeveloped executive functions during these turbulent years, teens can be woefully impulsive. They may lack the ability to consider consequences of their actions, control their emotions, sustain attention, be flexible when faced with setbacks, and self-monitor. They are likely candidates to engage in risky behaviors, including substance abuse, unprotected or random sex, gambling, eating disorders, self-mutilation, and preoccupation with appearance. Emotionally they may experience difficulties such as mood swings, suicidal thoughts, and aggressive behaviors. In school their poor planning and organizational skills may result in poor academic performance.

Improving EF Skills

To reduce risk-taking behaviors, teens must explicitly be taught executive function skills. They will not learn them by osmosis or from their surroundings. Parents may initially serve as their child's "external" frontal lobe, but the objective should be for adolescents to internalize the skills and strategies to become independent learners with the full array of executive functions.

For parents, it's a struggle to strike a balance-to allow teens the independence they crave and give them the positive feedback they need, while teaching them the skills and strategies necessary to make good judgments. While it is easy for teens to view parents as nagging or controlling, once they begin to feel more grounded and self-content and see positive results in their academic work and social relationships, they will understand the importance of making the skills their own.

Acknowledge and Address Challenges

For teens with executive function deficits, avoiding risky behavior is tied to taking responsibility for themselves. They need to move past denial to become comfortable with who they are; they need to acknowledge their strengths and challenges and learn to address their needs creatively and specifically.

The importance of this "buy-in" cannot be overestimated. Without it, teens struggle with their differences. They lack the self-esteem they need to succeed, become depressed and apathetic, and develop bad habits that are hard to break, such as making excuses and blaming others for their challenges and failures.

On the other hand, when teens are able to understand and confront their needs, they are likely to become efficient self-starters, more organized and goal-oriented than their peers. They often find creative ways to address problems, such as using cell phones as alarms, reminders and calendars for compiling lists and making notes throughout the day. Honing their self-advocacy skills, these teens feel comfortable describing accommodations or modifications in the classroom and, later in life, will be able to apply their advocacy skills in the workplace.

Finding a Passion

Another key to preventing risky behavior is for teens to find their passion. Many adolescents with executive function challenges thrive on out-of-the-box interests. Parents, in supporting their teen's quest to find activities to pursue enthusiastically should allow all doors to remain open for consideration. Theater, dance, visual arts, stand-up comedy, creative writing, journalism, entrepreneurship, and consulting are just a few possibilities to keep in mind.

Since many teens with learning and attention issues are late bloomers, this may be a long process and involve several false starts. Once teens find what they are looking for, however, their passions may serve as replacements for risky behavior. Pursued zealously, they will bring excitement and "highs" similar to those associated with addictions. And in addition, teens will gain self-esteem and self-confidence, learn important skills, and create friendships based on positive shared interests.
This article is based on a presentation by Peg Dawson, Ed.D., sponsored by Smart Kids with LD. Dawson is a psychologist at the Center for Learning and Attention Disorders in Portsmouth, NH and a member of Smart Kids' Professional Advisory Board. Eve Kessler, Esq., a criminal appellate attorney with The Legal Aid Society, NYC, is co-founder and President of SPED*NET, Special Education Network of Wilton (CT), and a Contributing Editor of Smart Kids.
Related Smart Kids Topics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By Peg Dawson, Ed.D with Eve Kessler, Esq. Have you ever wondered why adolescence is characterized by change, confusion, high emotions, and impulsive decision-making? It's largely a function of brain development: The part of the brain responsible for decision-making (the frontal lobe) is still evolving, and will continue to do so until about age 25.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
My almost 8-year-old is brilliant but he is a bit scattered (like his mom, the scattered part at least). He has trouble staying on task, completing a work cycle, and getting organized to meet deadlines and complete assignments. In short, his executive functioning skills worried me.

Do you feel you're in the same boat but are like " What is Executive Function?" Yeah, that was me but I took the bull by the horn and dug into every piece of research I could find on the topic.

For many years, I didn't worry about his natural tendencies. I let him experience free play and a less structured lifestyle to develop his problem-solving, critical-thinking, and creative-thinking skills a la NurtureShock.

Related Read: Occupational Therapy 101 For Parents

Executive Functioning Skills

When we had our second son, I noticed his profound ability to locate objects. That sound a bit crazy, I know, but a young child, cognitively speaking, doesn't have the ability to "find things" easily. This skill is one that develops over time, a skill that is nurtured by the environment, including the adults within the environment. I remember murmuring out loud, "Where are my keys?" and suddenly my 2-year-old would run up to me with my keys and say, "Here keys, Mumma. In bathroom."

I am a huge proponent of inquiry-based learning and project-based learning. Give the child control, let him guide his learning, and observe the beauty. I get that beauty. We all learn through having experiences, failing, and trying again.

So, what was my son missing? His scientific thinking is superb. He is curious and digs deep into his learning, yet he can't get his homework assignments completed. He will design and write out instructions for a board game but won't ever create it. My son never has a plan and if he did there would be no follow-through.

Related Read: 12 Things an FBI Hostage Negotiator Taught Me about Parenting

Part of me thinks to let it go, that these skills will develop in time, that pushing him will only work in the opposite direction. Now that he is nearly finished his 2nd-grade year, I am on alert to assist him. In true form, I set out to research the best resources for parents and teachers to nurture executive functioning skills in children. Of course, I have to share these resources with you.

Related Read: How to Help Scattered Kids Conquer Everyday Life Skills

Related Read: What You Need to Know about the Characteristics of Gifted Children

Executive Functioning Skills Resources

1. Smart but Scattered by Peg Dawson is a go-to resource for many parents and caretakers around the world.

2. Executive Functioning Activities Guide by Age offers a fantastic array of ideas for parents and teachers to help guide kids to further develop such an important life skill.

3. The Everything Parent's Guide to Children with Executive Functioning Disorder by Rebecca Branstetter

4. Checklists such as these visual routine charts from Etsy work wonders for kids

5. A simple notebook for the child to make lists and stay on top of tasks

6. Binders and Folders to create a system

7. Use a timer for all occasions - school time, mealtime, and so on. We use Amazon's Alexa to assist us with a timer (among many other things such as weather, audiobooks, cooking, and music!).

8. Rhythms, Routines, & Schedules by Rachel Norman and Lauren Tamm

9. What is Executive Function Guide for Parents

Click here to view more details
Let me know your go-to executive functioning skills resources!

Marnie

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Learn top notch executive functioning skills resources to help you and your children.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
My almost 8-year-old is brilliant but he is a bit scattered (like his mom, the scattered part at least). He has trouble staying on task, completing a work cycle, and getting organized to meet deadlines and complete assignments. In short, his executive functioning skills worried me.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
CHADD - Improving the lives of people affected by ADHD

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Children and Adults with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (CHADD) is the nation’s leading nonprofit organization serving people affected by ADHD.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Executive-Function Skills: Important Skills for Childhood Development

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What does it feel like to learn and think differently? Watch these videos to see the world through your child's eyes. Kids of different ages talk about how it feels to learn and think differently - and what helps them thrive.

Hear how hard it is to complete a task when you have trouble focusing. Or how frustrating it is when your hand won't write what your brain is telling it to write.

Reading challenges: Videos of kids

Hear from kids about what it feels like to struggle with reading - and get insights from expert Julie Washington on how to help.

Math challenges: Videos of kids

Hear from kids about what it feels like to struggle with math - and get insights from expert Michèle Mazzocco on how to help.

Writing challenges: Videos of kids

Hear from kids about what it feels like to struggle with writing - and get expert insights on how to help.

Attention challenges: Videos of kids

Hear from kids about what it feels like to struggle with focus - and get insights from expert Ned Hallowell on how to help.

Organization challenges: Videos of kids

Hear from kids about what it feels like to struggle with organization - and get expert insights on how to help.

What causes these challenges, and how can you help if your child is struggling? Choose from the following skills to learn more:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Through Your Child's Eyes Tool | Learning Disabilities

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What does it feel like to learn and think differently? Watch these videos to see the world through your child's eyes. Kids of different ages talk about how it feels to learn and think differently - and what helps them thrive. Hear how hard it is to complete a task when you have trouble focusing.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Top 10 Graphic Organizers to Help Students Comprehend Nonfiction

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Scholastic Teachables presents graphic organizers to help students evaluate their thoughts, comprehend nonfiction, and write engaging responses.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It is surprisingly hard to define executive function, and this has major consequences for students who struggle with executive function, especially students with learning differences.

Part of the problem of arriving at a clear definition is historical; executive function as a concept lies somewhere between the fields of neuroscience, psychology, and education, and each field has interpreted executive function using its own lingo and perspective. Another problem is that the various components of executive function often overlap. If a student is struggling to use a graphic organizer to plan out their essay, are they struggling to organize and prioritize ideas or are they having difficulty shifting between main ideas and details?

This confusion is reflected in the varying definitions of executive function offered by leading researchers.

proposes that there are four executive function processes, including:

1. Nonverbal working memory

2. Internalization of speech (verbal working memory)

3. Self-regulation of affect/motivation/arousal

4. Reconstitution (planning and generativity)

suggests that there are six areas:

1. Organizing, prioritizing, and activating for tasks

2. Focusing, sustaining, and shifting attention to task

3. Regulating alertness, sustaining effort, and processing speed

4. Managing frustration and modulating emotions

5. Utilizing working memory and accessing recall

6. Monitoring and self-regulating action

One danger of having competing defintions and breakdowns of executive function is that we, as educators, find ourselves confused and unsure of how to proceed. After all, how can we support our students if we don't know whether they are struggling with 'reconstitution' or 'activating tasks'?

Yet there is a real danger in not understanding executive function because it will undermine our efforts to help our students effectively. In my work I often ask parents, students, and teachers for their definition of executive function. One student, who I will never forget, responded, "I don't know what it is, but I don't have it."

This student had heard of executive function in his special education classrooms. The term was applied to all the things he was bad at - test taking, organizing papers, checking his work, and staying on task. Instead of being taught executive function strategies that helped him succeed, executive function had become another reason for his failures.

All students can engage successfully with executive function strategies if they are taught explicitly and given opportunities to reflect on their learning process. As educators we need a definition of executive function that is clear, concrete, and can help us empower our students.

The official SMARTS definition of executive function, based on the work of Lynn Meltzer, is, "Executive function (EF) is a broad term used to describe the complex cognitive processes that are the foundation for flexible, goal-directed behaviors."

SMARTS breaks executive function down into five areas in order to identify how executive function impacts students' lives.

1. Shifting flexibly (cognitive flexibility)

2. Goal setting

3. Organizing and prioritizing

4. Accessing working memory

5. Self-monitoring and self-checking

Each of these executive function processes plays a crucial role in success, whether in school or in life. Teachers and their students can easily see how these processes are involved in learning and can therefore create strategies to address them.

As you learn more about executive function, I encourage you to make sure that your understanding is tied to concrete, real-world challenges and opportunities that you see your students face. No matter which defintion you prefer, apply your growing understanding of executive function to teaching strategies that are tied to real-world examples and you will be on the right track.

Michael Greschler, M.Ed., SMARTS Director

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Many Definitions of Executive Function - SMARTS

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It is surprisingly hard to define executive function, and this has major consequences for students who struggle with executive function, especially students with learning differences. Part of the problem of arriving at a clear definition is historical; executive function as a concept lies somewhere between the fields of neuroscience, psychology, and education, and each field has interpreted executive function using its own lingo and perspective.

# data[].attributes.headline
How Your Brain's Executive Function Works

# data[].attributes.subject
How Your Brain's Executive Function Works

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How your brain's executive function works -- and how to improve it | Sabine Doebel

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Organization Challenges- Gabby, 9th Grade

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Executive function includes key skills like attention and working memory. Learn how problems with executive function impact learning, working, and everyday life.

# data[].attributes.headline
Executive Skills Questionnaire for Adults

# data[].attributes.subject
Executive Skills Questionnaire for Adults

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
These executive function interventions are rooted in research and aim to create new habits that can sidestep or override a child's cognitive challenges. When something becomes a habit, your child doesn't have to think about it and can use his brainpower for new things.

The target is not just the executive functions - it's also the external environment. In very precise ways, these interventions put more supports into the system so your child can function as their best self. That might mean adjusting the environment, and people's responses, so that your child develops competency through experiences of success.

These executive function interventions can vastly improve a family's quality of life by neutralizing stress and frustration. With help, your child can function more effectively at home, in school, in relationships, and in the community.

In what ways does your child struggle with schoolwork?

Child
Sitting Still for Homework
Create a distraction-free homework zone for your child by gathering all her supplies in one place.
Turning in Homework
Your best defense against chronic homework issues may be teaching your child how to use a daily planner to stay organized and on target.
Leaving School Without Packing Backpack
Children who are consistently quick to grab and go, without filling their backpacks with homework supplies may need some help with their inhibition skills.

Adolescent
Talking Too Much in Group Study
Replacement behaviors can help children who interrupt too much or dominate conversations learn to override their urge to talk.
Poor Notes, Stressed Studying
If your child processes information slowly and struggles with note taking, get the extra support he needs to absorb the information at his own pace.
Completing Long-Term Assignments
The key to successfully completing long-term tasks is flexible planning and problem solving. Use our tips to help your child build skills that will turn the next overwhelming assignment into a manageable one.
Starting Homework
The best tool to help your procrastinating child get started on a task can be found in your kitchen - an old fashioned kitchen timer.
Zoning Out in Class
Your child's teacher can be her best ally in keeping her focused when she zones out in class.

In what ways does your child struggle at home?

Child
Getting Ready in the Morning
Trade chaos for competence in your child's morning routine with visual prompts to help her build her organizational skills.
Following Instructions to Perform a Chore
Your child may tune out your chore instructions because the thought of doing chores doesn't thrill him, or he may just be slow in processing information that contains multiple steps.
Doing What You Ask, When You Ask
Constantly repeating yourself when giving your child a directive? Hold his attention by getting verbal confirmation that he has heard what you said.
Avoiding Distraction on an Outing
It can be difficult for some children to resist the urge to wander off in search of something more exciting, but they can be taught to steer their choices.
Losing Track of Belongings
Using a visual cue can be a handy reminder for your child to put things in their proper place while also sharpening organizational skills.
Remembering Multiple-Step Instructions
A mnemonic can be a handy tool to help your child remember multiple-step instructions.
Crying Over Little Things
When every small issue becomes a big deal to your child and leads to tears, validating her disappointment without giving in will help her learn emotional control.
Accepting Alternative Options
Help your child learn to deal with situations that don't go her way by practicing the "either-or" technique to lessen anxiety and build flexibility.

Adolescent
Lost Shoes and Missing Backpack
Using a visual cue can be a handy reminder for your child to put things in their proper place while also sharpening her organizational skills.
Remembering Multiple-Step Instructions
A mnemonic can be a handy tool to help your child remember multiple-step instructions.
Fighting with a Friend
When your child loses his cool, he can avert the urge to fight with a friend if he takes a pause to acknowledge his feelings and wait for them to pass.
Being a Good Judge of His Own Performance
When your child's perception of her behavior is very different from yours, you can compare notes using a three-column reality check exercise.
Always Running Late
How reliable is your teen's internal clock? Knowing how long it takes to do various task by using a stopwatch will help your teen to better manage her time.
Imagining Worst Possible Outcomes of Small Setbacks
If your child sees small changes in plans as big catastrophes, you can help him adjust his perspective by giving an imaginary pep talk to a friend dealing with a similar situation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
These executive function interventions are rooted in research and aim to create new habits that can sidestep or override a child's cognitive challenges. When something becomes a habit, your child doesn't have to think about it and can use his brainpower for new things.

# data[].attributes.headline
Bolstering Skills in Middle/High School Student

# data[].attributes.subject
Bolstering Skills in Middle/High School Student

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Bolstering Executive Function in Middle and High School Students

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
School of Psychology, Queen's University, Belfast, Northern Ireland

The structure of executive function (EF) has been the focus of much debate for decades. What is more, the complexity and diversity provided by the developmental period only adds to this contention. The development of executive function plays an integral part in the expression of children's behavioral, cognitive, social, and emotional capabilities. Understanding how these processes are constructed during development allows for effective measurement of EF in this population. This meta-analysis aims to contribute to a better understanding of the structure of executive function in children. A coordinate-based meta-analysis was conducted (using BrainMap GingerALE 2.3), which incorporated studies administering functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) during inhibition, switching, and working memory updating tasks in typical children (aged 6-18 years). The neural activation common across all executive tasks was compared to that shared by tasks pertaining only to inhibition, switching or updating, which are commonly considered to be fundamental executive processes. Results support the existence of partially separable but partially overlapping inhibition, switching, and updating executive processes at a neural level, in children over 6 years. Further, the shared neural activation across all tasks (associated with a proposed "unitary" component of executive function) overlapped to different degrees with the activation associated with each individual executive process. These findings provide evidence to support the suggestion that one of the most influential structural models of executive functioning in adults can also be applied to children of this age. However, the findings also call for careful consideration and measurement of both specific executive processes, and unitary executive function in this population. Furthermore, a need is highlighted for a new systematic developmental model, which captures the integrative nature of executive function in children.

Introduction

Executive function (EF) is an umbrella term for a number of inter-related cognitive processes needed for purposeful, goal-orientated behavior ( Anderson, 2001; Lerner and Lonigan, 2014). EF enables the regulation and monitoring of high level cognitive resources and is usually employed in novel situations ( Shallice, 1988; Stuss, 1992). Cognitive processes associated with EF include planning, problem-solving, novel thinking, and the ability to adapt behavior to the changing environment ( Zelazo et al., 2003; Banich, 2004). Additionally, EF performance reliably predicts many intellectual and social competencies, such as school readiness ( Welsh et al., 2010), early literacy, and numeracy attainment ( Blair and Razza, 2007), later school accomplishment ( Checa and Rueda, 2011) and social understanding ( Riggs et al., 2006). The terms "executive function" and "cognitive control" are regularly used interchangeably in the literature ( MacDonald, 2008; Lenartowicz et al., 2010). However-although our position supports this view-for the purpose of clarity and because our work draws heavily on perspectives that have used the "executive function" term, in this paper this term will be used throughout. Broadly speaking, impairment in EF has been linked to behavioral problems, and is evidenced in individuals with neurodevelopmental disorders including reading disorders, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism and several genetic syndromes, including for example, Prader-Willi syndrome ( Booth et al., 2003; Kenworthy et al., 2008; Woodcock et al., 2009, 2010; Visser et al., 2015; Danforth et al., 2016). Despite this, findings in relation to how EF may be linked to clinically relevant behavior remain largely inconsistent. The focus of the present meta-analysis is to investigate the neural structure of EF in children during typical development. Such knowledge is necessary to elucidate the executive underpinnings of clinically relevant behavior in individuals with neurodevelopmental disorders.

There has been much debate on how executive function is structured, for example on how far individual executive processes may reflect manifestations of a single EF capacity or of multiple component processes ( Miyake et al., 2000; Best et al., 2009). However, a leading theory, known as the integrative model ( Miyake et al., 2000), consolidates such unitary and dissociative views. Importantly, the processes considered in this model have been commonly discussed in the context of typical and atypical development, and roles in behavior ( Harvey et al., 2004; Friedman et al., 2011; Karasinski, 2015; Roelofs et al., 2015; Blair, 2016). The processes are: withholding a dominant or highly practiced response ["inhibition" (inhibit)]; the regular monitoring and revising of working memory content ["updating" (update)]; and changing flexibly between tasks and mental sets ["switching" (switch)] ( Nee et al., 2013). The most recent incarnation of the integrative model identifies an underlying commonality ("common executive")-assumed to contribute to all executive processes. It has been argued, to be virtually indistinguishable from inhibition-alongside separable switching and updating processes, which rely on common EF and corresponding unique components ( Friedman et al., 2008, 2011; Miyake and Friedman, 2012).

Critically then, there is a currently open question about which executive processes can be viewed as truly separable, and exactly how these are related to each other. This question is fundamentally important for understanding the nature of executive dysfunction in atypically developing populations and its relationship to behavior. For example, taking switching as a purported separable executive process, it has been argued that switching specific demands, which require flexibility, oppose goal maintenance in the face of distractions, which are demands that have been attributed to common executive ( Goschke, 2000; Dreisbach and Goschke, 2004; Blackwell et al., 2014). Indeed, individual differences in different executive processes have been associated in opposite directions, with attention problems and self-regulatory behaviors ( Friedman et al., 2007, 2011; Young et al., 2009). Yet much work on atypically developing populations has tended to take a perspective driven by the measures available, with relatively little attention to underlying structure. Therefore, this approach has often not allowed measure-related and process-related effects to be clearly distinguished (e.g., Van Eylen et al., 2011). Better understanding of how EF processes can be separated is thus required to drive productive research on how these processes can be impaired and the effects of such impairment. One way to further this understanding is with examination of neural constituents of EF.

Since its initial description, the integrative EF model has been applied to child samples in several EF test performance based studies ( Hughes, 1998; Lehto et al., 2003; Davidson et al., 2006; Agostino et al., 2010; Rose et al., 2011; Lee et al., 2013). Early results from both exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses showed that-as in adults-there are three inter-related executive processes in children aged 8-13 years ( Lehto et al., 2003). However, in subsequent studies switching and updating have not always been distinguishable ( Huizinga et al., 2006; St. Clair-Thompson and Gathercole, 2006; van der Sluis et al., 2007; Wiebe et al., 2011; Miller et al., 2012; Usai et al., 2014). Thus, even applying closely equivalent approaches, the question of how applicable the integrative model is to the developing brain remains to be resolved. It is important to note that these studies have applied a range of different measures to examine EF in children, which could contribute to the inconsistent findings. A neural functional approach that includes multiple measurement approaches can help to resolve this inconsistency.

In adults, attempts to examine the structure of EF in a neural context have generally provided support for the integrative model. For example, application of a computational neural network model has provided support for common EF and a switching specific process ( Herd et al., 2014). Further, meta-analyses of fMRI data have discriminated patterns of activation across putatively separable executive processes ( Lenartowicz et al., 2010). Yet, have still identified common activation indicative of an overarching EF network ( Niendam et al., 2012). However, even in adults, attempts to examine the neural constituents of multiple executive processes in the same meta-analysis ( Buchsbaum et al., 2005; Derrfuss et al., 2005) have been limited by use of a single task to tap each process. Thus, making it impossible to distinguish between EF process-related and EF task-related findings ( Nee et al., 2013).

In children on the other hand, neuroimaging work has generally focused on the emergence and maturation of specific executive processes in children. The development of inhibition, switching and updating (in the broader context of WM) has been examined separately ( Kwon et al., 2002; Durston et al., 2006; Morton et al., 2009; Satterthwaite et al., 2013; Kharitonova et al., 2015; Murphy et al., 2016). When assessed collectively, the evidence suggests that from an integrative model perspective, we might expect common executive, switching, and updating to show distinguishable developmental trajectories. Indeed, previous fMRI examinations have found age-related activation changes, pertaining to inhibition, switching and updating, respectively, during childhood and adolescence ( Kwon et al., 2002; Durston et al., 2006; Morton et al., 2009).

There is a clear lack of meta-analytic investigation using neuroimaging data pertinent to EF in typical children. Many such analyses have incorporated both children and adults in a single sample and have tended to focus on clinical evaluation, particularly those relevant to ADHD, as reported in e.g., ( Dickstein et al., 2006; Cortese et al., 2012; Hart et al., 2013). In addition, existing adult and/or child fMRI meta-analyses have tended to take a process specific or task specific approach rather than attempting to address how multiple executive processes are related to one another (e.g., Criaud and Boulinguez, 2013). Whole brain analyses also need to be utilized, as much of the literature considers a region of interest approach e.g., the insula ( Chang et al., 2013), or right ventrolateral prefrontal cortex ( Levy and Wagner, 2011). Only one meta-analytic study, conducted by Houdé et al. (2010), has reviewed the three executive processes considered in the integrative EF model, using fMRI data from typical children and adolescents (aged 4-17 years, using an age cut-off of 11.4 years, as this was the midpoint). Houdé et al. found regions of activation similar to those reported in adult samples. Yet, the authors only examined "collective" activity pertaining to inhibition, updating and switching (which from an integrative model perspective could be viewed as common EF). But did not assess activation specific to individual executive processes. Thus, the findings cannot inform on the potential applicability of the integrative EF model to children or the relative commonality vs. dissociation of individual processes.

The present study investigates the structure of EF in children and adolescents, by examining fMRI activation during EF task performance. The executive processes of interest include inhibition, updating, and switching, as emphasized by Miyake's integrative model. Further, an additional variable representing the unitary executive process ("common executive"), which amalgamates all three executive processes of interest, is considered. BrainMap GingerALE software (version 2.3) was used. In line with Miyake and Friedman's integrative model and the hierarchical model of EF development proposed by Garon et al. (2008), we hypothesize that activity relating to inhibition and common executive will largely indicate shared activation. This finding would provide support for inhibition and common executive processes being indistinguishable at a neural level. On the other hand, we hypothesize that significant non-shared activation will become apparent when common executive is compared to switching and updating, indicating the presence of switching-specific and updating-specific components of EF in children.

Methods

Design

Papers relating to inhibition, switching, and updating were identified. Following this, Activation-Likelihood Estimation (ALE) maps were produced to examine the location of brain activation during inhibition, switching, and updating task engagement in the whole sample group (aged 6-18 years). Similarly to the study by Houdé et al. (2010), comparable ALE maps were also created from studies comprising only children (6-12 years; "child" group). Separate maps for each of the executive processes were created and a "common executive" map comprised shared activation across tasks tapping the individual executive processes. Areas of significant overlap and differentiation in these maps were compared to examine neural integration vs. distinction of the EF processes.

Study Selection

Literature searches were conducted in Web of Science, PubMed and PsycINFO between 23rd October 2014 and 24th April 2015. Keyword searches comprised the following terms combined with AND operators: 1. fMRI OR "functional magnetic resonance imaging"; 2. child*; 3. inhibition OR stroop OR "flanker task" OR switching OR updating etc. A full list of the terms used is reported in Table 1. Multiple terms were used for each executive process of interest. Where specific EF tasks with commonly used names were identified, these names were added to the search, e.g., a study employing a Stroop task did not have to include the key word "inhibition" to be identified. Notably, more such specific tasks were identified for inhibition (see Table 1). Some tests sometimes labeled as EF tests-such as WM span tasks-measure WM capacity, which we and others consider to be the passive storage of information in short-term memory, a different construct to WM updating ( Lehto, 1996; Miyake et al., 2000; Chein et al., 2011). Such tests were therefore excluded from the present meta-analysis.

Table 1. List of terms used in database searches.

Initial inclusion criteria were typically developing child participants (aged 6-18 years) engaging with an inhibition, switching or updating task during fMRI acquisition. Consequently, 195 papers were retrieved from these searches. Typical development was defined as having had no prior diagnosis of a psychological problem. Thus, children could be deemed typically developing despite their suggested risk of a psychiatric disorder based on for example, expression of a genetic polymorphism variant or score on a clinical scale using "at risk" cut-offs (e.g., Mechelli et al., 2009; van 't Ent et al., 2009). Following this, authors who did not report activations in standard stereotactic coordinate space (Talairach or Montreal Neurological Institute) were contacted and asked to forward coordinate activations if possible. Thus, unpublished data were included in the analysis. If appropriate data were not received by 30th April 2015, the paper was excluded. Authors were also approached if only between groups (higher-level) comparisons were reported. Or if activations isolating the executive process(es) of interest were not addressed, i.e., they had to report a contrast between an executive demand condition and a matched comparison condition that did not apply the executive demand. Further, if papers only provided activation data recorded during the pre-or post-stimuli intervals or if the contrasts were indicative of successful vs. failed responses and vice versa. Once these parameters were applied, 90 papers remained. Region-of-interest (ROI) analyses were excluded to prevent an activation bias ( Poldrack, 2007; Kriegeskorte et al., 2009). Some papers incorporated multiple experiments, either within or across the three executive processes. However, if needed, further contact with the authors was made to ensure that data from one group of participants during an EF task reported in multiple papers or at multiple time points, was not duplicated. On the other hand, if the same participants completed more than one EF task, the data from these tasks was included. Consequently, 49 papers endured, but with 53 experiments. Of these studies, six included eight datasets that have never been published before. Further to the database search, the reference lists from all applicable papers were also examined to identify potential additions to the meta-analysis, however, this resulted in no additional papers.

The final dataset included 1,177 participants with a mean sample age more than 6 years and <18 years (Table 2). The whole sample dataset incorporated 573 activation foci, and the child group incorporated 549 participants across 29 experiments, containing 317 activation foci. The cut-off for the child group was based on previous research indicating that executive processes tend to be relatively mature by the age of 12, yet not "fully established" (e.g., Anderson, 2002). A demographic summary of each study including study name, participant age, number of participants, EF task used, stimuli, contrast and number of foci, is outlined in Table 2.

Table 2. List of studies included in the meta-analysis.

Analysis

Activation-Likelihood Estimation (ALE)

BrainMap GingerALE software (version 2.3) was used to perform an ALE meta-analysis. Analyses were conducted based on Montreal Neurological Institute (MNI) coordinates and coordinates originally published in Talairach and Tournoux (1988) stereotactic-space were converted to MNI using the Lancaster transformation ( Lancaster et al., 2007). ALE is a coordinate-based technique based on voxel-wise foci of significant activation across the included studies. Activation foci from separate studies are mapped in a common stereotactic space to highlight consistent conjunction. The ALE method calculates the number of activation peaks across each brain region and compares this to a uniform activation distribution representative of a null hypothesis (which is when there are not enough peaks in a voxel to indicate that at least one peak truly activates in that voxel; Wager et al., 2007). The activation foci are then treated as 3D Gaussian probability distributions and incorporated into a modeled activation map for each study. Data are filtered through a Gaussian kernel, which is sensitive to each study's sample size ( Eickhoff et al., 2009, 2011). It is important to note that while the ALE method considers conjunctive activation, a study with more participants can contribute more to the overall results ( Wager et al., 2007). The ALE statistic means that within a given voxel, at least one or more significantly activated peaks apply ( Turkeltaub et al., 2002). In the present study, the random sampling was subjected to 5,000 iterations to compute a null distribution. This was then used to compare with voxel-wise ALE values to calculate statistical parameters ( Nee et al., 2013). The ALE maps were thresholded at p < 0.05 corrected for multiple comparisons by false discovery rate (FDR; Laird et al., 2005) and a cluster threshold of 100 mm ³ ( Hill et al., 2014) was employed in the first-level analyses.

First-Level Analyses

First-level analyses on common executive (shared activation across tasks tapping inhibition, switching, and updating executive processes; Figure 1A) and each specific putative executive process (inhibition, updating, and switching) were conducted. First-level analyses describe clusters that pass the applied threshold for significant conjunctive activation across these groups of studies. These analyses were computed for both the whole sample and the child group separately.

Figure 1. First and second-level analysis design. (A) First-level Common Executive (inhibit, update, switch); (B) First-level Common Executive (inhibit, switch); (C) Second-level Conjunction Analysis for Common Executive (inhibit, switch) and Updating; (D) Second-level Contrast Analysis for Common Executive (inhibit, switch) and Updating. N.B. There are statistical differences between (A,C).

Second-Level Analyses

Second-level analyses compare two first-level analyses, examining significant similarities and differences in activation. Second-level conjunctions reveal significant shared activation between two ALE maps. While second-level contrasts reveal significant non-shared activation between two ALE maps, by subtracting one ALE map from the other. To achieve these analyses whilst controlling for different sample sizes across studies, simulated data is created by pooling datasets and randomly dividing them into two groups of equal size. These groups are also equivalent to the original data sets' sizes. The ALE images from the new datasets are then compared to each other; and resultant conjunctions/contrasts are compared to those in the true data. Following many permutations, a voxel-wise p-value image is created and transformed to a z score to indicate significance ( Eickhoff et al., 2011).

To examine the distinction between each executive process and common executive, the shared and non-shared activation between these processes was investigated. Since analyses pool data across studies, including the same study in common executive and process specific maps for second-level analyses, would introduce a bias toward significant conjunction. Thus, at the second level, analyses were conducted so as to prevent any individual study being included in two first level maps being compared. For example, in second-level analyses for updating and common executive, the "updating" map was compared to a "common executive (inhibit, switch)" map (Figure 1B). Conjunction analyses to assess activation pertaining to the executive component of the executive process of interest-in this case, updating-were conducted (Figure 1C). As were contrast analyses which examined updating-specific activity (Figure 1D). Corresponding analyses were also administered for switching and inhibition. This technical necessity is thus consistent with our theoretical stance. Here, the common executive construct is defined as a system drawn on by all other executive processes (including the three specific processes focused on here but also others that are not the present focus). Thus, we are working from the assumption that shared activation across two; or three; or more individual executive processes should be equally capable of identifying the common executive component at a neural level.

Control Analyses

Further second-level analyses, which we will refer to as "control analyses" were conducted to examine the putative similarities and differences between common executive, switching, and updating. The control analyses were designed to control for the lower number of switching studies in the data set. These conjunction and contrast analyses incorporated subsamples of common executive, which comprised inhibition, switching and updating datasets with ~58 foci each (to match the maximum number of switching foci obtained). These were then compared with subsamples of each specific executive process (again with ~58 foci each). Again, to reduce bias, each specific executive process subsample contained different studies from their comparative subsample in the common executive dataset. The foci included in each common executive dataset were chosen at random, while ensuring that approximately equal numbers of foci from each EF task were represented. Four different subsample datasets were computed for common executive and updating and thus, four control analyses were conducted. As there is only one switching dataset, we created four subsample datasets with inhibition and updating only (~58 foci each) and contrasted these with the switching dataset, resulting in four separate analyses. Thus, for the examination of updating vs. common executive activation, these control analyses included a common executive map derived from studies that included inhibition, switching, and updating tasks. The analyses therefore allowed some verification of the assumption that common executive activity can be isolated from shared activation across tasks tapping two; three or more executive processes.

Results

Common Executive and Inhibition

First-Level Common Executive Analyses

The first-level ALE map for common executive in the whole sample demonstrated shared activation in 29 clusters, with the largest activation in the right and left middle and superior frontal gyri and the right and left supplementary motor area. Right parietal regions, such as the supramarginal gyrus, the inferior, and superior parietal gyri including the intraparietal sulcus (IPS), the precuneus, and the angular gyrus, as well as the left inferior and superior parietal gyri were activated. Activation was also present in the anterior insular cortex (AIC; Figure 2 and Supplementary Materials Section A).

Figure 2. First-level analysis for common executive in the child/adolescent group (x = 5, y = 17, z = 47; x = 113, y = 75, z = 58). ALE maps showing the significant activation clusters of common executive for the child/adolescent sample (29 clusters).

The common executive first-level ALE map for the child group showed 30 clusters, and like the child/adolescent group, the largest cluster extended between the right and left supplementary motor area, the right and left middle cingulum, and the right and left superior and medial frontal gyri. The same right parietal regions as the whole sample were activated, as well as the right middle frontal and precentral gyri (Figure 3 and Supplementary Materials Section B).

Figure 3. First-level analyses for common executive in the child group (x = 5, y = 17, z = 47; x = 113, y = 75, z = 58). ALE maps showing the significant brain activation for common executive in the child group (30 clusters).

First-Level Inhibition Analyses

The whole sample ALE map for the inhibition first-level analysis indicated 20 activation clusters, with the largest clusters residing in the right and left superior and medial frontal gyrus and right and left supplementary motor areas. Large clusters were also located in the right inferior frontal gyrus extending to the right AIC and right superior temporal pole, as well as the right parietal regions, including the IPS (Figure 4 and Supplementary Materials Section A).

Figure 4. First-level analyses for inhibition (x = 5, y = 17, z = 47), updating (x = 5, y = 17, z = 47), and switching (x = 5, y = 5, z = 46) for the child/adolescent group. ALE maps reveal the significant activation clusters of Inhibition (20 clusters), updating (25 clusters), and switching (4 clusters) in the child/adolescent group.

The ALE inhibition first-level map for the child group revealed 18 activation clusters. The main patterns of activation were evident in the frontal areas, including the right frontal eye fields (FEF), with clusters extending from the left and right supplementary motor areas, through the left and right medial frontal gyrus, to the left and right middle cingulum (Figure 5 and Supplementary Materials Section B).

Figure 5. First-level analyses for inhibition for the child group (x = 5, y = 17, z = 47). ALE maps reveal the significant activation clusters of inhibition for the child group (18 clusters).

Second-Level Analyses

The conjunction analysis for common executive (update, switch) compared with inhibition revealed 10 shared clusters in the whole sample and 5 in the child group. The areas with the most significant activation in the whole sample included the left medial and superior frontal gyri; bilateral areas of the insula and parietal areas; and right sided activation in the precentral gyrus, claustrum, and precuneus. Whereas, the areas with significant activation in the child group resided bilaterally in the medial frontal gyri and right sided activation in the cingulate gyrus, claustrum, the inferior parietal lobe, and precuneus. However, the contrast analysis did not identify any significant differences for either sample. This is consistent with the view that inhibition is not separable from a common executive capacity (Supplementary Table C and Supplementary Figure 1, and Supplementary Table D and Supplementary Figure 2).

Common Executive and Updating

First-Level Updating Analysis

The first-level ALE map for updating displayed 25 clusters, with the main activation demonstrated in right and left frontal medial gyrus, including the FEF, extending to the supplementary motor areas and middle cingulum extending to the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC). Other clusters included extensions from the right pars opercularis to the right precentral gyrus, the left and right inferior parietal lobule (with the right sided activation spreading to the supramarginal gyrus and IPS), the right and left middle frontal gyri to the superior frontal gyri and the right and left insula (Figure 4 and Supplementary Materials Section A).

Second-Level Analyses

Examining the common executive component of updating, the second-level conjunction analysis produced 8 clusters in the whole sample (ranging between 40 and 2,576 mm ³ in size). These mainly resided in the left and right superior frontal gyrus continuing to the medial frontal gyrus and extending to the right cingulum and right supplementary motor area, the left and right insula and the right inferior and superior parietal lobes (Figure 6 and Supplementary Materials Section E). The second-level conjunction analysis for the child group resulted in six clusters, residing bilaterally in the medial frontal gyrus, the right cingulate gyrus, claustrum, and right parietal areas (Supplementary Table F and Supplementary Figure 3).

Figure 6. Common executive (inhibit, switch) and updating (x = 47, y = 13, z = 46). Significant conjunction and contrast analysis results for common executive (inhibit, switch) and updating. Regions of significant conjunction (eight clusters-red) and contrast (four clusters-blue) are displayed. The clusters indicating non-shared activation were found when the common executive (inhibit, switch) dataset was subtracted from the updating dataset.

To examine a putative "updating specific" component of updating, the second level contrast analysis revealed four clusters (ranging between 144 and 1,136 mm ³). These clusters were located in the right middle and superior frontal gyri, as well as the pars triangularis and pars opercularis in the right inferior frontal gyrus, and the left and right cerebellar crus I and II (Figure 6 and Supplementary Materials Section E). However, the second-level contrast analysis revealed no significant clusters in the child group.

Control Analyses

Four second-level control analyses were conducted using foci-matched common executive and updating datasets. This provided a matched point of comparison to the switching analyses. And tested whether the pattern of significant non-shared common executive vs. updating activity exists when the common executive map includes updating tests. Two of the analyses identified contrast clusters when common executive was subtracted from updating. The first found one contrast cluster (216 mm ³) extending between the right inferior and superior parietal lobe. The second found two clusters, with the largest (304 mm ³) residing between the right middle frontal gyrus and the right precentral gyrus. While the smaller (104 mm ³) extended between the left cerebral crus I and left cerebellar lobule VI (Supplementary Table H and Supplementary Figure 4). These findings demonstrate that although the power of the analysis has been compromised, due to the lower number of foci included, updating-specific activity is still apparent.

Common Executive and Switching

First-Level Switching Analysis

The first-level analysis for switching resulted in four activation clusters. The largest cluster was located in the right postcentral gyrus in the parietal lobe, with other clusters residing in the right middle cingulum extending to the ACC, the left precentral gyrus extending to the pars opercularis in the inferior frontal gyrus and the left lingual gyrus spreading to the left calcarine (Figure 4 and Supplementary Materials Section A).

Second-Level Analyses

Furthermore, to examine the putative common executive component of switching, the second-level conjunction analysis revealed one cluster (88 mm ³) extending between the left precentral gyrus and the left frontal inferior operculum. To examine the putative "switching-specific" component of switching, the second level contrast analysis revealed one cluster (192 mm ³) in the left lingual gyrus extending to the left calcarine (Figure 7 and Supplementary Materials Section G). These findings support the view that common executive and switching-specific components of switching may be separable at a neural level. Conjunction and contrast analyses were conducted for the child group, however, due to the low number of studies, no clusters pertaining to shared or non-shared activation were revealed.

Figure 7. Common executive (inhibit, update) and switching (x = −7, y = 4, z = 1). ALE maps demonstrate the significant conjunction (one cluster-red) and contrast activation (one cluster-green) for common executive (inhibit, update) and switching. The contrast cluster was produced when the common executive (inhibit, update) dataset was subtracted from the switching dataset.

Control Analyses

Finally, four control analyses were also generated for the equivalent switching data, however, no significant differences were found in the contrast analyses.

Discussion

Here, an ALE meta-analysis investigated overlap and differentiation in neural activation pertaining to inhibition, switching, updating and the putative unitary "common executive" capacity in children under the age of 18. Results suggest an overlapping yet distinct neural structure of executive function, as previously reported in adults ( Collette et al., 2006). No inhibition-specific neural correlates unrelated to the common executive were identified in either the whole sample (child/adolescent) or in the child only group. Further, when updating and switching were compared to the unitary common executive, shared neural activation was demonstrated, pointing toward common executive components of switching and updating. However, such comparisons also revealed non-shared neural activation linked to updating and switching, pointing toward separable updating-specific, and switching-specific entities in the whole sample. Specifically focusing on the child group relied on analyses with less power. Nevertheless, it is important that no evidence could be provided to support updating or switching-specific separable entities in the child group, despite substantial data being available to examine this possibility for updating.

When common executive activity was isolated, it revealed significant bilateral activation in fronto-parietal areas and regions of the supplementary motor area in the whole sample group. The corresponding analysis limited to the child group demonstrated significant activity in largely the same areas. These results are in line with previous findings, which show activity in these areas during EF tasks throughout the child and adolescent years ( Chambers et al., 2009). Further, activation in these regions has also been linked to conjunctive activity across inhibition, switching and updating tasks in adults aged 18-60 years ( Niendam et al., 2012). This is consistent with the EF "fronto-parietal flexible hub" theory posited by Cole et al. (2013), which is based on functional neural connections engaged during EF. Previous meta-analyses assessing EF activation have also generated results indicative of shared neural activity. One such analysis, conducted by Derrfuss et al. (2005), assessed the role of the inferior frontal junction (IFJ) during switching and Stroop task performance. Both analyses showed concurrence of activation in the IFJ, yielding support for an overlap of shared resources between the two executive process paradigms. Since the IFJ is part of the fronto-cingulo-parietal network, this study provides further support for the present results. Furthermore, as the study by Derrfuss et al. examines adult data, our results suggest a similar EF structure may be apparent in children.

In the present study, common executive activity coincided with activity linked to inhibition-isolated from shared activation across only inhibition tasks-in both the whole sample, and the child only group. However, for activity linked to inhibition tasks, larger clusters of right parietal activity were evident in the whole sample relative to the child group. Although our analyses could not make direct statistical comparisons between the two sample groups, these findings are generally consistent with progressive age-related increases in parietal activation during inhibition engagement ( Rubia et al., 2006; Neufang et al., 2008). This is also consistent with further evidence reporting a right laterality effect in adolescents compared to children ( Houdé et al., 2010). In line with the apparent similarities across common executive and inhibition related activation maps, our findings demonstrated areas of statistically significant shared activation across common executive and inhibition. Although, direct comparison between activation pertaining to inhibition and common executive has not been the focus, many previous studies have reported corresponding areas of activation for these constructs in child, adolescent and adult samples ( Wager et al., 2005; Velanova et al., 2008; Niendam et al., 2012; Vara et al., 2014; Lei et al., 2015).

Further, our findings showed of no areas of statistically significant difference across common executive and inhibition in either the whole sample or the child group. This is consistent with our hypothesis and in line with the view that inhibition and common executive are indistinguishable ( Friedman et al., 2008, 2011; Miyake and Friedman, 2012). This finding is important because it helps to reconcile some of the previous discrepant findings in the field. For example, previous research on the structure and development of EF suggests a unitary factor representing a common underlying EF process is evident during early-middle childhood. And after this time, distinct executive processes emerge ( Tsujimoto et al., 2007; Shing et al., 2010; Brydges et al., 2014; Lerner and Lonigan, 2014). In addition, both Zelazo's cognitive complexity and control theory ( Zelazo and Frye, 1998; Zelazo and Muller, 2002) and Munakata's theory ( Munakata, 2001) describe EF changes in early childhood as possessing a unitary quality. However, in contrast, Diamond emphasizes the dissociative components of EF during development, yet, she also argues that periods of synthesis of multiple executive processes can occur during times of EF growth spurts in the preschool and early childhood years ( Diamond, 2001, 2006). Inhibition is the factor most commonly identified in developmental EF latent variable analysis research, even in very young children, and this may be the first to develop ( Garon et al., 2008). Therefore, the present findings suggest that what develops first may be the common component of EF, which is indistinguishable from inhibition during the developmental period. Executive dysfunction at an early age may thus be primarily governed by an inhibition deficit. Due to the apparent strong links with behavior problems, early intervention to improve inhibitory abilities may be key to minimizing the risk of developing clinically-relevant behaviors.

In examining common executive components of updating in children under 18 years, our findings point toward bilateral frontal, right parietal and subcortical activation. Furthermore, updating-specific activation could be distinguished from this pattern in the whole sample group. Updating-specific activity was also frontal but specifically right sided, and further included areas of activation in the cerebellum. Previous work in adults has revealed greater activation in bilateral frontal regions as well as left parietal areas, when updating was compared to switching and inhibition ( Collette et al., 2005), pointing toward some correspondence across children and adults in this respect. Previous work in adults has attempted to isolate an updating-specific process from common executive at a neural level using relational analyses between indices derived from performance on cognitive tests; and functional and morphometric indices of brain networks ( Reineberg et al., 2015; Smolker et al., 2015). However, relationships between individual differences in updating-specific ability and a resting state functional connectivity network were not demonstrated consistently across all of these indices. It was therefore proposed that updating-specific ability may rely more on a specific area involved in WM and less on connectivity between regions.

Miyake and Friedman (2012) posited that the concept of an updating-specific process, and the abilities it taps, is less clear than the other executive processes. Yet, they have suggested "effective gating of information" and "controlled retrieval from long-term memory" as integral components. This proposal is consistent with work that has examined transformation, substitution-in line with Miyake's effective gating-and retrieval, as updating subsidiary components ( Bledowski et al., 2010; Ecker et al., 2010; Zhang et al., 2012). This allows updating to be viewed with respect to performance on measures of WM capacity, which similarly draw on retrieval ( Unsworth and Engle, 2008; Ecker et al., 2010). All of the updating tasks included in the present meta-analysis (n back tasks) and the task employed by Reineberg et al. (2015) and Smolker et al. (2015) (keep track), require retrieval ( Linares et al., 2016). Thus, since right prefrontal brain regions have been particularly implicated in WM capacity ( Prabhakaran et al., 2000; Zhang et al., 2004; Repovs and Baddeley, 2006), the present findings are consistent with the view that the updating specific process identified may rely heavily on neural architecture involved in WM capacity. Previous research has suggested that computerized WM training can increase WM capacity and improve use of WM in everyday life ( Spencer-Smith and Klingberg, 2015). However, there has been debate around whether such improvements may transfer to, for example clinical benefits in developmentally disordered populations ( Melby-Lervag and Hulme, 2013). Future work in this area that considers the presently suggested relationship between updating specific EF and WM capacity may be productive in informing on the scope of potential effects of WM training and their applicability to atypical child populations.

The present results also pointed toward a role of the cerebellum in updating-specific processes. Cerebellar activation has been linked to performance monitoring during task engagement. Particularly, it has been linked to post-error processing in relation to motor responses ( Peterburs et al., 2015). All of the presently included updating tasks incorporated button-press responses, consistent with involvement of post-error motor response processes. Thus, it is possible that the present involvement of cerebellar activity reflects a task specific process, as have been highlighted as important factors to consider in this kind of functional neuroimaging analysis ( Chein et al., 2011; Tomasino and Gremese, 2016). Considering such processes, it is interesting to note that a particular role for cross-modal integration of information for WM has been highlighted ( Prabhakaran et al., 2000; Zhang et al., 2004; Repovs and Baddeley, 2006). Since the updating tasks involved in the present meta-analysis also involve integration of information across domains, one possibility that warrants further examination is the degree to which updating-specific processes may be inherently task specific.

Notably, our results revealed no updating-specific activation in the child group suggesting a possible distinction between how far updating-specific neural processes can be differentiated in children under 12 years; and those under 18 years. When examining updating subcomponents, age related changes in neural activation linked to retrieval, but not substitution or transformation, have been demonstrated across children, adolescents and young adults ( Linares et al., 2016). This is consistent with development in WM capacity throughout childhood and adolescence. Such development follows a linear trajectory with subtle adjustments, in particular, in increased capacity, taking place during adolescence and early adulthood ( Gathercole et al., 2004; Satterthwaite et al., 2013). Thus, one interesting possibility highlighted by the present findings is that as WM capacity develops over childhood, so too does the relationship between common and specific components of updating, which allows updating tasks to be performed successfully. A focus for future research may be to assess the development of both dimensions of updating during childhood. And examine if there is a temporal link between improvements in WM capacity and the advancement of the executive component of updating and updating-specific abilities.

Our first-level analysis of switching related activation pointed toward involvement of right parietal-cingulo, left frontal and left occipital (lingual gyrus) regions. These findings must be treated with substantial caution due to the lack of switching data. Yet, they are consistent with previous meta-analyses examining switching-related neural activation in adults ( Buchsbaum et al., 2005; Collette et al., 2005; Niendam et al., 2012) and so suggest a general correspondence between children and adults in this respect. Unfortunately due to the low number of switching studies included, a comprehensive examination of switching related activation in children under 12 years was not possible. The present evidence for both a common executive component of switching-which involved left frontal activation-and a switching-specific component, is consistent with previous work in adults ( Herd et al., 2014; Reineberg et al., 2015; Smolker et al., 2015) and supports an integrative view of switching in children. However, previous work has pointed toward parietal involvement in a switching-specific process in adults ( Collette et al., 2005; Reineberg et al., 2015). But the presently identified switching-specific activity was limited to left occipital regions (lingual gyrus). In interpreting these results, it is again important to consider the limitations of the relatively small amount of data available on switching tasks. However, since all of the presently included switching tasks relied heavily on visual stimuli, the finding is consistent with increased susceptibility to task modality being a feature of less developed cognitive processing ( Fisher, 2011; Irving et al., 2011). Interestingly, deficient switching demonstrated in individuals with a particular genetic neurodevelopmental disorder has been associated with greater involvement of occipital; but reduced involvement of frontal parietal brain regions in switching ( Woodcock et al., 2010). Thus, an important area for future investigation will be how switching-specific processes change over the course of development. And whether the deficient switching that appears to be evidenced in several neurodevelopmental disorders ( Woodcock et al., 2009; Van Eylen et al., 2011), reflects a deficiency in switching-specific processes; the common executive component of switching; or both.

Overall, these findings demonstrate that the neural substrates of executive function in children are part of a superordinate EF network, mainly represented in the fronto-cingulo-parietal cortices. Yet, selective recruitment within these areas and others, such as subcortical regions, is evident when executive process-specific capacity is analyzed. These results are in line with previous meta-analytic research examining EF in adults ( Collette et al., 2005; Niendam et al., 2012).

Not dissimilar to other brain imaging meta-analyses, methodological considerations are evident. A limitation of the ALE method is that, with regards to statistical thresholds, inter-study differences are not accounted for- perhaps most notably, the power of each study. Further, this coordinate-based technique does not consider the extent of activation for each cluster but activation location only. Cluster based thresholding does not allow for precise spatial specificity, thus, we must be careful not to make inferences about the statistical significance of a particular location within a given cluster ( Woo et al., 2014). Findings should also be regarded as a depiction of positive results, bearing in mind negative results cannot be generated ( Cortese et al., 2012).

In addition, the present study did not account for task content (e.g., stimuli type- spatial, letter, number etc.; or response type- motor, verbal). Previous meta-analyses have found EF activation to be task-dependent ( Kim et al., 2012). For instance, Simmonds et al. (2008) reported additional "complexity" related activation when they compared simple and complex go/no-go tasks which varied in terms of their working memory demands. Likewise, Swick et al. (2011) acknowledged the need to consider differential processing demands elicited by executive tasks. Upon examination of the neural activation of go/no-go and stop-signal tasks, the authors found concurrent activity for both tasks, whereas non-concurrence appeared in areas of the frontoparietal and cingulo-opercular networks, respectively. It is unfortunate that we were restricted in which tasks we could include in our analysis, as it is possible that the differential processing demands of those tasks had an influence on the patterns of activity identified. Indeed our results may indicate that activation relating to switching-specific and updating-specific abilities reflect processing demands necessary for respective task completion. Yet, since our analyses did not rely on only one particular task, the task-specific influence on our results was minimized. Nonetheless, in order to demonstrate a more complete neural picture of EF performance, future meta-analytic study should assess neural activity associated with EF task-specific components, which may in turn help to promote more effective EF measurement.

A further limitation of the present study is the broad age range used in the dataset. In addition to this, as some papers included in the analysis did not report detailed age demographics (see Table 2), there may be variability in the overall age range reported. Moreover, a clear limitation is the lack of switching studies that were available for inclusion. Thus, the present results relating to switching, particularly in the higher-level comparisons with other executive processes, should be treated with caution. While there has been considerable interest in examining the neural correlates of switching using fMRI, most of these studies do not include data from typical children and/or have not examined the contrasts appropriate for isolating the presently studied construct of switching. This may be because switching has been examined at a more sub-componential level e.g., the focus of the literature does not seem to be in examining switching per-se but instead how it works. Perhaps if a model of EF can be applied to children, which includes switching as a basic construct, this might facilitate more future attention on the construct of switching itself.

Finally, it is important to acknowledge the assumption made in the present analyses, based on our theoretical position. That is, isolating common executive activity based on tests tapping only two putative executive processes (Figure 1B), served an equivalent role to isolating such activity based on tests tapping three or more executive processes (Figure 1A). We were able to test this assumption on a small scale in our control analyses of updating, which pointed toward consistency with our primary analyses. We also conducted further second-level analyses which examined the shared and non-shared activation between maps of common executive, which included all tasks pertaining to inhibition, switching and updating and one of the executive processes. These analyses assessed whether inclusion of this data would bias the patterns of overlap and distinction. As expected, results showed shared overlap when each executive process was compared to the "inclusive" common executive map (with more significant clusters identified than in the primary analyses reported here). But no distinct clusters in contrast analyses were found in any of the analyses (Supplementary Materials Sections I-K). Thus, supporting the existence of a bias toward identification of conjunctive activation if any of the same studies are included in two maps compared in second-level analyses. These findings support our assumption. Nevertheless, the nature of the limitation itself meant that it could not be tested directly. For example, second-level comparison of a common executive map comprising inhibition, switching and updating studies; to one comprising only the inhibition and switching studies; would be biased toward identification of conjunctive activation.

In conclusion, the findings suggest that a structural model of EF-proposing one common underlying, and multiple separable processes-can be applied during development. However, in line with recent behavioral evidence, it does not appear that inhibition can be distinguished from the common process. And, updating and switching appear separable when considering adolescents alongside children. But, in children, these processes may not be separable. Thus, due to the complex nature of development and the changing structural climate of EF throughout childhood ( Tsujimoto et al., 2007; Shing et al., 2010; Brydges et al., 2014; Lerner and Lonigan, 2014; Howard et al., 2015), perhaps a new systematic developmental model is needed. The model should encourage careful measurement of common and process-specific components. Previous meta-analytic study has reported effects of task modality on EF performance in children ( Booth et al., 2010). However, the influence of non-executive factors on EF performance at a neural level has not yet been investigated. As a result, future examination is warranted, which could inform on valid EF measurement. Only then, can we begin to systematically amalgamate knowledge acquired through understanding the neural infrastructure of EF in development, to behavior-in particular, executive dysfunction in clinical populations.

Author Contributions

All authors made substantial contributions to research design, drafting and final approval of the manuscript. RM conducted the literature searches and analyses as a part of her doctoral research. KW acted as RM's principal supervisor and TR acted as RM's second supervisor.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

The research was supported financially by a doctoral scholarship (to RM) from the Department of Education and Learning, Northern Ireland. Several authors whose articles are included in the analysis provided additional (previously unpublished) data and their contribution is very gratefully acknowledged. Ciara McGuinness, Róisín McCrory, Katrin Tott, Laura Hynds, Elizabeth Heads, Daniel Collins, Mary Frances McCafferty kindly assisted with literature searches.

Supplementary Material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fnhum.2017.00154/full#supplementary-material

References

Anderson, K. G., Schweinsburg, A., Paulus, M. P. Brown, S. A., and Tapert S. (2005). Examining personality and alcohol expectancies using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) with adolescents. J. Stud. Alcohol 66, 323-331. doi: 10.15288/jsa.2005.66.323

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Banich, M. (2004). Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuropsychology, 2nd Edn. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin.

Diamond, A. (2006). "The early development of executive functions, in The Early Development of Executivefunctions. Lifespan Cognition: Mechanisms of Change, eds E. Bialystock and F. I. M. Craik (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 70-95.
Google Scholar
Sheinkopf, S. J., Lester, B. M., Sanes, J. N., Eliassen, J. C., Hutchison, E. R., Seifer, R., et al. (2009). Functional MRI and response inhibition in children exposed to cocaine in utero. preliminary findings. Dev. Neurosci. 31, 159-166. doi: 10.1159/000207503

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Informing the Structure of Executive Function in Children: A Meta-Analysis of Functional Neuroimaging Data

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The structure of executive function (EF) has been the focus of much debate for decades. What is more, the complexity and diversity provided by the developmental period only adds to this contention. The development of executive function plays an integral part in the expression of children's behavioral, cognitive, social, and emotional capabilities.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Graphic Organizers (Spanish) | Animal Alphabet | PBS LearningMedia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Los animales a veces comparten características similares. También son únicos. Usando los herramientos, puede explorar los animales del PBS KIDS Animal Alphabet y otros.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Executive function and self-regulation (EF/SR) skills provide critical supports for learning and development, and while we aren't born with these skills, we are born with the potential to develop them through interactions and practice.

This 16-page guide (available for download, below), describes a variety of activities and games that represent age-appropriate ways for adults to support and strengthen various components of EF/SR in children.

Each chapter of this guide contains activities suitable for a different age group, from infants to teenagers. The guide may be read in its entirety (which includes the introduction and references) or in discrete sections geared to specific age groups.

Suggested citation: Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University (2014). Enhancing and Practicing Executive Function Skills with Children from Infancy to Adolescence. Retrieved from www.developingchild.harvard.edu.

Download PDF

Enhancing and Practicing Executive Function Skills with Children from Infancy to Adolescence

An activities guide for building executive function

Download PDF

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Activities Guide: Enhancing & Practicing Executive Function Skills

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Download free guides of executive functioning activities to support and strengthen skills, available for children ages six months through adolescence.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Executive Function - The Laurel School of Princeton

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Social and emotional learning (SEL) is an integral part of the Laurel lower school. SEL is the process through which all young people acquire and apply the knowledge, skills, and attitudes to develop healthy identities, manage emotions and achieve personal and collective goals, feel and show empathy for others, establish and maintain supportive relationships, and make responsible and caring decisions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How to Optimize Working Memory in the Classroom

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Executive function is the cognitive domain that comprises high-level thinking and decision making.

Executive function can be divided into the subdomains of:

Mental flexibility - the ability to transition between thinking about different concepts

Planning - the ability to mentally select an appropriate action to achieve a desired goal

Strategy - the ability to implement strategic thinking for problem-solving

Response inhibition - the ability to suppress inappropriate responses

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Executive function is the cognitive domain that comprises high-level thinking and decision making.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Graphic organizers in Spanish are organizadores visuales or organizadores gráficos. Graphic organizers are an wonderful tool to use with all learners, but they have particular advantages with children working to master a second language. Below you will find two sets of great Spanish graphic organizers. They are free to print and use with kids.

Advantages of Using Spanish Graphic Organizers

- Spanish graphic organizers pull together the vocabulary students need to write or talk about a topic.
- As children organize information, they write key vocabulary and see the relationship between words.
- Spanish graphic organizers build in repetition. Kids use words once as they organize information and then again as they write or speak. That repetition is essential to language learning!
- Graphic organizers provide support for language learners as they speak and write. For example, retelling a story is an important language task, but it can be difficult. With a Spanish graphic organizer in hand, it is much more manageable.

Spanish Graphic Organizers

Organizadores Gráficos has a selection of Spanish graphic organizers. Click on individual images for information about how to use printable Spanish graphic organizers with students.

I have used the Mapa del cuento (there are two versions), the Tabla de los cinco sentidos and the Tabla de los cinco preguntas (qué, quién, por qué, cuándo, dónde). I use the last organizer with a warm-up listening activity where I tell a short, simple story with puppets or drawing on the board.

You can find the materials here: Organizdoresgraficos.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Spanish Graphic Organizers - Spanish Playground

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Spanish graphic organizers help kids learn vocabulary. Speaking and writing tasks are more effective and more fun. Dozens of great free organizers!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What Are Executive Function Skills?

Have you ever heard of executive function skills? They are an incredibly important set of skills we use every single day!

Beginning at a very young age, we apply this combination of skills to daily activities and situations, such as playing, learning, and socializing. Overall, they help us accomplish important things and reach new achievements.

Examples of ways we use executive functions skills:

.While playing peek-a-boo, babies know where an object is even if it can't be seen.

Children take turns and share with peers.

They learn to be okay with losing.

They follow directions from adults.

While socializing.

Baby learns to focus and pay attention to people as they talk.

They at first imitate others, then learn how to use gestures and expressions during communication.

Children learn to talk through issues with their friends and find a solution.

As they get older, they organize gatherings with their friends and follow-through with those plans.

At school.

Children manage their time properly in order to get assignments and tests done on time.

They pay attention to learn new things.

They keep handouts organized by subject so they can easily find the materials we need.

Executive Function: Know the Basics

When do we begin developing executive function skills?

Executive function skills begin developing when we are babies! We first start to use these skills at a very young age, possibly before our first birthday. Executive function skills become increasingly important in social and school settings, and continue to develop and change throughout our lives due to learning and life experiences.

Why do we need executive function skills?

Executive function is about functional skills. These are skills that help us with daily routines, school work, friendships, working, playing, etc. With executive function, we take what we know and find practical and important ways to use those skills.

For example, as a child we learn how a light switch works. Then, we apply that information to help us in a new situation or environment, such as knowing how to use a light switch in a different house, or how to figure out different types of switches. Using information we learned to solve problems is an important use of executive function skills.

What are some of the different areas of executive function skills?

There are many areas of executive function skills. Three of them are:

Working memory: This type of memory helps us remember and apply information to everyday activities, to put our memories to "work". An example of working memory would be remembering the rules of a game while playing that game.

Self-control: The ability to think about what to do before doing it, with control over our reaction. For example, self-control is at work when we raise our hand and wait to be called on before giving an answer.

Mental flexibility: The ability to switch efficiently between multiple subjects. This is a key skill set to participate in learning, play, and social environments that require problem solving, working with others, or trying new things. For example, mental flexibility is at work when we switch from recess to the classroom, and are able to appropriately function in both environments.

What do executive function skills help with?

Reading and applying what you learn

Getting to work or school on time

Completing a list of chores

Playing with friends and siblings

Cleaning your room

Cooking

Working with a group

Finishing a project

Asking for help when you need it

Checking over your homework before turning it in

Getting along with people even if you are upset

How can parents help develop and improve executive function skills?

Have predictable routines from a young age

Provide baby with age-appropriate toys and household items to play with and explore

As a baby, use imitation games such as clapping hands to build memory skills and teach baby how to copy you

As they grow older, continue to model the behavior that you would like to see in your children

Bring children along on errands

Let them try new things and complete tasks to help build confidence

Acknowledge good behavior

Talk through steps of an activity

Provide opportunities for free, creative play and problem solving

Executive Function Activities

Keeping every age active and using their executive function skills

Keep exercising your child's executive function skills using these everyday tasks.

What to Watch For

How to know if your child is struggling with executive function

Potential signs and risk factors of executive function issues in children include:

General delays in motor, cognitive, or communication development

Significant differences in responses to sensory experiences, e.g. too sensitive or not sensitive enough

Becomes easily frustrated and struggles to manage emotions or is not easily calmed as a baby

Has rigid routines and dislikes change

Struggles to make adjustments after getting used to doing something a certain way

Has difficulty completing simple, age-appropriate tasks

Difficulty with age-appropriate social interactions

Struggles to participate in age-appropriate play

Needs more help with tasks than other children his or her age

Struggles with time management

Difficulty starting task on their own

Disorganized

Difficulty using and applying information from memory

Forgets rules easily

Difficulty planning and completing projects

Appears impulsive

Poor emotional control

Struggles with open ended tasks

Executive Function skills are learned skills. With practice and a little help, all children can improve their executive functions. Practice makes better!

If you feel your child is struggling, talk to your healthcare provider. It's important to remember executive function skills use a combination of motor, sensory, and communication skills, so talk to your healthcare provider if you notice delays in any of those areas.

There are pediatric specialists who may be able to help your child with executive function including:

Physical Therapists: Strive to make every session fun, while working on improving strength, flexibility, range of motion, posture, balance, and movement patterns. If your child has difficulty in any of these areas, talk with your child's healthcare providers about the impact physical limitations can have on executive function development, and to see a physical therapist to address these issues.

Occupational Therapists: Help children master daily life skills by helping them strengthen the physical, cognitive, and sensory skills required to achieve every day activities. Occupational therapists address underlying skill limitations while providing adaptive strategies to help children perform daily tasks as independently as possible, which in turn helps children further build their skills and confidence.

Speech-Language Pathologists: Work to give children the tools to communicate effectively. Children may feel stressed or anxious if they are unable to express their feelings. Speech-language pathologists aim to improve a child's ability to use verbal and non-verbal communication, and engage in meaningful learning and social activities.

Developmental and Behavioral Pediatricians: Address developmental delays and disabilities, attention and behavioral issues, regulatory and habit disorders, and anxiety and stress management.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Learn the Basics of Executive Function | Free Resources

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Executive function skills are important skills that we use everyday. Learn about how you can help your child develop & improve executive function skills.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Students with executive function challenges often have trouble planning, managing time, and organizing. Accommodations can help them work around these challenges and thrive in the classroom.

Here are some common accommodations teachers can use to help students who struggle with executive skills.

Classroom planning, schedules, and routines

Post schedules, directions, class rules, and expectations; make sure the student sees them.

Have a daily routine that changes as little as possible.

Provide folders and a basket of supplies to keep the student's desk organized.

Giving instructions and assignments

Give step-by-step instructions and have the student repeat them.

Use attention-getting phrases like, "This is important to know because...."

Say directions, assignments, and schedules out loud.

Check in frequently to make sure the student understands the work.

Give simple and concrete written and spoken directions.

Grade based on work completed, not points off for work not completed.

Let the student use speech-to-text (dictation) technology for writing.

Introducing new concepts/lessons

Highlight key words and ideas on worksheets.

Give a short review or connection to a previous lesson before teaching.

Allow different ways to answer questions, like circling or saying them.

Provide a rubric that describes the elements of a successful assignment.

Share the test format ahead of time so the student can focus on content.

Give the student an outline of the lesson.

Give notice (when possible) about schedule changes.

Building organization and time management habits

Use organizers and mind-mapping software.

Help the student create a daily to-do list to track assignments.

Use an assignment notebook.

Provide an extra set of books for the student to keep at home.

Break down big projects into smaller pieces with more deadlines.

Provide colored strips to place under sentences or equations when reading.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Classroom Accommodations for Executive Function Challenges

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Students with executive function challenges often have trouble planning, managing time, and organizing. Accommodations can help them work around these challenges and thrive in the classroom. Here are some common accommodations teachers can use to help students who struggle with executive skills.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Developing Executive Function With Priority Lists

# data[].attributes.headline
Center On The Developing Child-Harvard University 

# data[].attributes.subject
Center On The Developing Child-Harvard University 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Executive function and self-regulation skills are the mental processes that enable us to plan, focus attention, remember, and juggle multiple tasks.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Kross agrees. "Even among neuroscientists, there are probably eight different definitions of executive function," he notes. "When thinking about kids in school, moving up one level to the question of self-control-which I define broadly as a person's ability to align their thoughts, feelings, or behaviors with their goals-ends up being a lot more productive."

We took some of their best insights, and pored over recent research, to find eight powerful, evidence-based strategies.

Talking Ourselves Into It

Consider these strategies:

Have kids write about it.

Empower peer advisors.

Learning-Do It On Purpose

To link learning and purpose, try these approaches:

Ask about interests and passions.

Pass the torch to the kids.

Make time for (rigorous) projects.

Plan to Practice, Practice to Plan

Keep these tactics top of mind:

Scaffold scheduling, deadlines, and study habits.

Introduce your tech tools.

Introducing a calendar once or twice during the year is not the same as integrating one into classroom routines, and a great gulf lies between assigning an essay that connects learning and purpose, and asking students to make those connections weekly. To get teens to start "aligning goals with behaviors," in Kross' words, we need to find ways to get them to practice, fail, and practice again.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
8 Ways to Bolster Executive Function in Teens and Tweens

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Kross agrees. "Even among neuroscientists, there are probably eight different definitions of executive function," he notes. "When thinking about kids in school, moving up one level to the question of self-control-which I define broadly as a person's ability to align their thoughts, feelings, or behaviors with their goals-ends up being a lot more productive."

# data[].attributes.headline
Bilingualism and Executive Functions Overlap

# data[].attributes.subject
Bilingualism and Executive Functions Overlap

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I've got a twist on the age-old problem for SLPs- confusing second-language acquisition with learning and language difficulties. In this case, we are going to compare bilingualism and executive function.

Who doesn't like a thought experiment right? Especially if you are of the language nerd variety.

Here it goes:

Thought 1:

Speech-language pathologists work with children who have communication that is atypical.

Second-language acquisition looks different than monolingual development.

Therefore, second-language acquisition can be confused as being a language disorder.

No argument here, yet right?

Thought 2:

If we are saying that bilingualism is not a disorder, there should be some identifiable differences.

And there are.

Articulation Example

Not a Disorder Potentially a Disorder

Child does not accurately produce a sound that exists in English (TH) and not their home language.
That, Spanish speaker: Dat

Child does not accurately produce a sound that exists in BOTH languages and would be expected for her age.
(P) Pet, Spanish - Pato

Language Example

Not a Disorder Potentially a Disorder

Child doesn't use a language process (past tense verbs) that exists in English but not their home language.
He walked to school (conjugated verb) Mandarin: Yesterday, he walk to school (not conjugated)

Child isn't using a language process that exists in both languages.
Plural /s/ on the ends of word. English (cat S) Spanish (gato S)

Thought 3:

If second-language acquisition can be confused for a speech or language disorder, but there are ways to tell the difference, can the same be true for bilingualism and executive function?

Yes.

The cognitive load of learning a second language can look like executive function difficulties.

And yes.

There is a way for speech-language pathologists to tell the difference.

If the cognitive effort of constantly controlling multiple languages has an effect on executive function development, then executive function task performance should differ between monolingual second language learners with little language control experience and multilinguals with more extensive language control.
Multilingual Language Control and Executive Function
Frontiersin.org

Where do Bilingualism and Executive Function Overlap?

Think about it. Have you been in a store lately or tried to talk with someone on a trip that did not speak English? You can almost feel the smoke coming out of your ears as you are trying to bend the gears in your brain and understand what they are saying. Now, imagine that this is your daily experience. Even worse, imagine that this is how you are expected to learn!

Four specific executive function difficulties share characteristics with processes of second language learning. They are Focus, Working Memory, Self-Regulation, and Flexibility.

Bilingualism and Focus

By working in their new language, they may be eager to complete their assignments but they may not realize that they are making mistakes.
What this can look like:

Student appears like he is not hearing you when he is given directions

Student has a difficult time staying on one topic when talking

Bilingualism and Working Memory

Second-language learners may appear as though they didn't understand you and may not completely follow through with instructions. They may also require covering topic twice to fully understand.
What this can look like:

Student has difficulty following directions with more than one part

Student has to re-read passages in order to understand

Bilingualism and Self-Regulation

Second-language learners and students with executive function difficulties may repeatedly make the same mistake.
What this can look like:
Student makes frequent mistakes and doesn't seem to notice

Bilingualism and Cognitive Development: Flexibility

Lastly, once a student experiences success, they may apply a strategy they learned to similar situations not understanding immediately why they are unsuccessful.
What this can look like:

Student has difficulty adapting to new social situations and understanding unwritten rules

Student gets stuck in one way of solving a problem

The exciting news: SLPs can help BIG TIME

There are 2 sides to the bilingualism and executive function coin. On one side, second-language acquisition can present difficulties that look like executive function issues as a child is trying to capture what is going on around them. On the other side, being skilled in teaching EF strategies ( Building Student Executive Functioning Skills) can enable you to rapidly help students from diverse backgrouds as they try to focus and organize in their new environment. Here is what you can do right away:

Better Define "Bilingual"

Understandably, learning a second language takes a considerable amount of effort. We would expect children who are learning a second language to have a learning experience that is different from monolingual students.

By getting to know more about where a student is in their process of acquiring a new language we can understand why a student is struggling. Don't just rely on the often-old Home Language Survey from their file.

For example, let's consider two 8-year-old students from Russian-speaking homes. Both are struggling with following directions, staying on topic, and making frequent mistakes. If one student has just arrived to the United States or has only been in an English setting for one year we would not be as concerned. If the other has been in an English or bilingual setting since Pre-K we would expect greater abilities.

Getting to know your students can bring you to a greater understanding of why they are having difficulties.

And, if you want to up your executive function game, we wrote a series of articles on executive function and have 3 executive function CEU courses:

Resources

Executive Function CEUs

Executive Function 101: Speech Therapy, Evaluations, and Classroom Support

Executive Function 201: Increasing Client Motivation and Self-Direction

Executive Function 301: Cognitive Processes and Changes Across Adolescence

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Bilingualism and Executive Function - 4 Ways They Overlap

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
I've got a twist on the age-old problem for SLPs- confusing second-language acquisition with learning and language difficulties. In this case, we are going to compare bilingualism and executive function. Who doesn't like a thought experiment right? Especially if you are of the language nerd variety.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This module examines the importance of effective study skills strategies and includes information on why some students struggle with those skills and why it's critical for teachers to explicitly teach such strategies (est. completion time: 1 hour). When you have completed the module, be sure to visit part two:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Study Skills Strategies (Part 1): Foundations for Effectively Teaching Study Skills

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This module examines the importance of effective study skills strategies and includes information on why some students struggle with those skills and why it's critical for teachers to explicitly teach such strategies (est. completion time: 1 hour). When you have completed the module, be sure to visit part two:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Executive functions are basically the management system of the brain. These mental functions which are thought to involve the frontal lobes of the brain help us organize and manage the many tasks in our daily life.

The executive functions' role is similar to a conductor's role within an orchestra. The conductor manages, directs, organizes and integrates each member of the orchestra. They cue each musician so they know when to begin to play, and how fast or slow, loud or soft to play and when to stop playing. Without the conductor, the music would not flow as smoothly or sound as beautiful.

Executive Functions and ADHD

An individual with ADHD may have impairment in several areas of executive functioning. Impairments in executive functions can have a major impact on our ability to perform such tasks as planning, prioritizing, organizing, paying attention to and remembering details, and controlling our emotional reactions.

Thomas E. Brown, Ph.D., a clinical psychologist and leading researcher on executive functions, identifies six clusters of cognitive functions that constitute a way of conceptualizing executive functions.

We are going to look at the 6 clusters and how they affect students with ADHD.

Activation: Organizing, Prioritizing and Getting Started on Tasks

A student with deficits in this area of executive functioning has difficulty getting school materials organized, distinguishing between relevant and non-relevant information, anticipating and planning for future events, estimating the time needed to complete tasks, and struggles to simply get started on a task.

Focus: Focusing, Maintaining, and Shifting Attention

A student who is easily distracted misses important information provided in class. They are distracted not only by things around them in the classroom but also by their own thoughts. They have difficulty shifting attention when necessary and can get stuck on a thought, thinking only about that topic.

Effort: Regulating Alertness, Sustaining Effort, Processing Speed

A student who has a hard time regulating alertness may become drowsy when they have to sit still and be quiet in order to listen to a lecture or read material that they find boring. It is not that they are over-tired; they simply cannot sustain alertness unless they are actively engaged. In addition, the speed at which a student takes in and understands information can affect school performance. Some students with ADHD process information very slowly, while others may have trouble slowing down enough to process information accurately.

Emotion: Managing Frustrations and Regulating Emotions

A student with impairments in this area of executive functioning may have a very low tolerance for frustration, such as when they don't how to do a task in class. They can also be extremely sensitive to criticism. Difficult emotions can quickly become overwhelming and emotional reactions may be very intense.

Memory: Using Working Memory and Accessing Recall

Working memory is a "temporary storage system" in the brain that holds several facts or thoughts in mind while solving a problem or performing a task.

Working memory helps an individual hold information long enough to use it in the short term, focus on a task and remember what to do next. If a student has impairments in working memory, they may have trouble remembering and following teacher directions, memorizing and recalling math facts or spelling words, computing problems in their head or retrieving information from memory when they need it.

Action: Monitoring and Self-Regulating Action

Individuals with ADHD often have deficits in the ability to regulate their behavior, which can significantly impede social relationships. If a student has difficulty inhibiting behavior they may react impulsively without thought to the context of the situation, or they may overfocus on the reactions of others by becoming too inhibited and withdrawn in interactions.

Like an orchestra, each of these functions works together in various combinations. When one area is impaired, it affects the others. If a student has deficits in one of these key executive functions, it can obviously interfere with school and academic performance.

The Next Steps

Many people find it empowering to understand why they are struggling with their studies. Others feel sad or angry that they struggle with tasks that other people seem to do effortlessly.

The good news is there are accommodations available to support you or your child with your individual study needs. Accommodations are designed to support you in the specific areas that you struggle with.

A few examples of accommodations include a reduced amount of homework (e.g., if the class is asked to do 20 math problems, your child would be asked to 10), extra time taking tests, help with reading assignments, permission to record lectures and help with class notes.

To receive help for your child, a good starting point is to speak to their teacher. The school is required by federal law to provide the additional services they need.

If you are at college or university, visit the office for student disabilities. They will be able to assist you in setting up accommodations.

Thanks for your feedback!

What are your concerns?

Other Inaccurate Hard to Understand

Article Sources

Brown, E.T. A New Understand of ADHD in Children and Adults: Executive Function Impairments. Routledge; 2013

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
ADHD Students May Have Poor Grades Due to Impaired Executive Functions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Executive functions are basically the management system of the brain. These mental functions which are thought to involve the frontal lobes of the brain help us organize and manage the many tasks in our daily life. The executive functions' role is similar to a conductor's role within an orchestra.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What's Executive Function—and Why Does it Matter?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The question of what constitutes responsible and legal behavior in children and adolescents is an issue with important philosophical, scientific, social, ethical, and practical considerations. A wider and better-translated neuroscientific understanding of the adolescent brain has the potential to help inform and transform how we respond to juveniles who offend, for their benefit and to reduce recidivism.
BRAIN SCIENCE IS REFORMING JUVENILE JUSTICE POLICY AND PRACTICE

A series of recent landmark cases in the U.S. Supreme Court has evolved to change our legal responses to juvenile offending. They have abolished the death penalty for crimes committed during adolescence, found mandatory life-without-parole sentences for murder in violation of the 8 th Amendment, and eliminated life-without-parole sentences for crimes less than murder. In Massachusetts, life sentences for juveniles were ruled unconstitutional, and the review of cases in which those sentences were given in the past has already begun. A significant part of the argument for these decisions included an understanding of adolescent brain development. While society's attitudes will ultimately dictate the shape of law, science can be used to confirm and dispel common ideas about teenage behavior to forge a more scientifically sound and financially viable system for adolescent reform.

Scientists know that the adolescent brain is still developing, that it is highly subject to reward- and peer-influence, and that its rate of development varies widely across the population. They have developed basic tools that offer data with which to judge the potential for juvenile desistance, recidivism, and rehabilitation.

With its ability to examine the workings of the teenage brain, neuroscience is improving our understanding of adolescents, and potentially, juvenile offenders. Through their window into the brain, neuroscientists understand, for example, that adolescents mature at markedly varied rates. The presumed trajectory of brain development, demonstrated in existing "bright line" age cut offs for voting, military service, and drinking, however, is not reflective of this variability in brain maturity. Similarly, neuroimaging research by CLBB faculty ( Somerville, 2010) clarifies that it is teenagers' heightened vulnerability to reward that drives risky behavior, contrary to longstanding beliefs that teenagers are unable to gauge risks. They can often recognize risks, but incomplete development of brain mechanisms related to modulation of impulsive behavior reduces their tendency to heed those risks.

Science may also help us understand which juvenile offenders are likely to commit future crimes and which may not. A longitudinal study, "Pathways to Desistance" ( Mulvey, 2011), has collected significant data on factors such as substance abuse and instability in daily routine that lead to youth recidivism. The seminal paper, "Rewiring juvenile justice: the intersection of development neuroscience and legal policy" ( Cohen and Casey, 2014), elucidates how key new scientific findings about the development of the adolescent brain may inform policy.

HOW CAN THE LAW REFLECT WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT THE BRAIN?

Scientists and clinicians interested in the practical application of neuroscience have created a substantive body of work that should inform juvenile justice policy. The MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Adolescent Development and Juvenile Justice established and expanded the knowledge base on adolescents and crime, and dissemination of that knowledge to juvenile justice practitioners and policy-makers has played a critical role in policy change. Organizations like the National Conference of State Legislatures have summarized research for application to law, such as "bright line" age limits. Nonprofit groups such as the Juvenile Law Center use brain science research to produce recommendations for the improvement of the juvenile justice system. Models for Change, a multi-state initiative relying on a network of court officials, legal advocates, and researchers, produces research-based tools and techniques to make juvenile justice systems more fair, effective, rational, and developmentally appropriate. Other scientific groups, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, are examining juvenile justice through their existing brain science lens. And the National Academy of Science's National Research Council recent report, "Reforming Juvenile Justice," collates all recent research to promote a developmental agenda for juvenile justice in the future.

Researchers have taken to the popular press, as well, to advance a developmentally appropriate juvenile justice system in the areas of prevention and treatment. Op-eds such as " Why teenagers act crazy" and " Friends can be dangerous" (both New York Times, 2014) seek to communicate understandings about the brain to the public to protect adolescent development and prevent adolescent crime. Other pieces, including " How solitary confinement hurts the teenage brain" ( The Atlantic, 2014); The " Prisoners of profit" series ( Huffington Post, 2013) and " Locking up kids for life" ( Boston Globe, 2014), by Harvard Law School Professor and CLBB faculty Nancy Gertner, all seek to address imminent legal- and treatment- related issues within the juvenile justice system. As part of PBS's Brains on Trial programming with Alan Alda (2013), CLBB co-director Judith Edersheim and CLBB faculty member Gene Beresin authored important commentary on teens and criminal responsibility, mental health services for youth in detention, assessing violence risk in kids, and the workings of the adolescent brain. Even prominent voices like the New York Times editorial board have taken strong stands on social issues where the science is clear, such as juvenile solitary confinement reform (2014).

DRIVING CONTINUED CHANGE

While the science has advanced a general understanding of normal youth development, gaps remain in a thorough neuroscientific, genetic, and epigenetic understanding of adolescent development and the factors that drive juvenile offending. Meanwhile, the legal system urgently lacks a nuanced conception of adolescent brain development as it is currently understood, and an effective use of data and assessment tools that would drive systematic change.

CLBB contributes to the improvement of juvenile justice by engaging in activities that translate neuroscience through original research and expert engagement with the public. With support from the Harvard Society for Mind-Brain-Behavior, CLBB has convened a Faculty Working Group to catalyze the development of a rich, interdisciplinary program of education, outreach, research, and policy work. The Juvenile Justice Faculty Working Group brings together experts on the adolescent brain and criminal justice to respond to key scientific, ethical and legal issues at their intersections. CLBB Faculty and working group members include adolescent brain researchers Leah Somerville, PhD and Margaret Sheridan, PhD, adolescent psychiatrist Gene Beresin, MD, and juvenile offender evaluation and juvenile justice policy experts Thomas Grisso, PhD, Robert Kinscherff, PhD, Esq., and Gina Vincent, PhD. Addressing crucial scientific questions, such as gaps in the science of adolescent brain development, as well as important issues in treatment, policy, and the law, this group of experts aims to produce both public-facing and law- and science-specific resources to advance a more scientifically sound criminal justice system for juveniles.
The group culminated its first year with a public Symposium, "Juvenile Justice & the Adolescent Brain: Is Healthy Neurodevelopment a Civil Right?" on March 12, 2015 at Harvard Medical School. Watch complete event video here.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The question of what constitutes responsible and legal behavior in children and adolescents is an issue with important philosophical, scientific, social, ethical, and practical considerations.&nbsp...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Raven’s Progressive Matrices - PART 1 | IQ Test Matrix | Level: Easy | Train our Brain | Skills Talk