“Doebel (2020). Rethinking executive function and its development.” – Article summary

Executive functions refer to the use of cognitive processes to engage, direct or coordinate other cognitive processes, typically in the service of goals. It is often believed to be a set of separable but related component processes involved in goal-directed thought and action (1), updating working memory (2), shifting between tasks (3) and inhibiting prepotent thoughts and responses (4). Deficits in executive function are linked to a range of clinical outcomes (e.g. ADHD).

The development of executive function is believed to consist of improvements in domain-general components that are thought to underlie self-regulatory and complex goal-directed behaviours. This, in turn, is improved due to prefrontal cortex development.

It is thought that executive function is reducible to one to three component processes that may become differentiated with age. Performance on measures of executive function improve dramatically in early childhood. Executive function may develop through neurocognitive mechanisms (e.g. active maintenance of abstract representation; inhibition).

It is believed that executive function is associated with a wide variety of things (e.g. theory of mind). Improvement in components of executive function is then believed to improve overall executive function, which is, in turn, believed to improve the particular object of interest (e.g. theory of mind). Improvements in executive function components are thus expected to lead to improvements in different but related domains that require executive function.

There are several problems with the view that executive function consists of a few components which are strongly related with other domains:

1. Evidence that exercising supposed executive-function components improves executive function or abilities in other domains is limited.
2. Standard lab measures of executive function do not consistently relate to questionnaire measures of self-regulation or many real-world outcomes of interest.
3. It is difficult to draw conclusions from correlations between performance on lab measures of executive function and other outcomes.
4. It is not certain that executive function consists of three components (i.e. the separable components identified in latent variable analyses may reflect common task demands).

Instead of viewing the development of executive function as the development of separable components, it should be viewed as the development of skills in using control in the service of specific goals. Specific goals activate mental content and children acquire this mental content with development in a specific sociocultural context. This shapes how they use control. According to this viewpoint, age-related improvement on measures of executive function may reflect the acquisition of knowledge, beliefs, values and more that shape how control is used in the service of particular goals. Executive functions most likely also consists of a basic capacity to maintain goal information.

Executive functions are always engaged in the service of a particular goal and these goals activate mental content that shapes how executive function is engaged and develops in relation to particular situations.

Different scores on executive function tasks related to self-regulation might have to do with the relevance of the task for the child (e.g. switching attention in a card game or between tasks, similar as in the classroom).

Currently, neurocognitive developmental accounts of executive function do not adequately take into account that executive function is always used in relation to specific goals that affect how it is used and develops. Skills in executive function develop through the acquisition of various kinds of mental content (e.g. knowledge; beliefs; values). It may be useful to provide children with experiences that make them value control more, which, in turn, improves their awareness of the need for control in critical moments.

Currently, it is believed that executive function improves through general, prefrontally supported increases in robust abstract representations in working memory. However, it may be more useful to see the capacity to maintain abstract representations in working memory as varying depending on the specific goal and the availability of relevant mental content. Engaging control should be explained in the availability of relevant information rather than general neurocognitive developments.

It is critical to take into account the nature of the task when seeking to understand and predict children’s performance. It is unlikely that executive function can ever be engaged without there being notable motivational or affectionate significance for the child. This means that the distinction between the hot and cold executive functions is not correct. This implicates that there are no general developmental differences in performance on hot and cold tasks, supported by underlying mechanisms but executive function performance will vary depending on the specific-goal at hand.