Developmental Variations in Learning: Applications to Social, Executive Function, Language, and Reading Skills (Lea's Communication Series)

This Page Intentionally Left Blank 2002 I . A W N C E E ~ B A ASSOCMTES, U ~ PUBLISHERS ~~~~, NewJersey London C...

Author: Dennis L. Molfese | Victoria J. Molfese

8 downloads 612 Views 27MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

2002

I . A W N C E E ~ B A ASSOCMTES, U ~ PUBLISHERS

~~~~, NewJersey

London

Copyright 0 2002 by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,Inc. All rights reserved.No part of this book maybe reproduced in any form, by photostat,microform,retrievalsystem, or any other means, without prior written permission of the publisher. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers 10 Industrial Avenue Mahwah, NJ 07430 Cover design by Kathryn~ o u ~ t a l Lacey ~ng

Developmental variations in learning :applications to social, executive function, language, and readingskills / [edited by] DennisL. Molfese and VictoriaJ. Molfese. p. cm. Includes bibliog~phicalreferences and index. ISBN 0-8058-2229-1 (cloth :a&. paper) 1. Cognition in children. 2. Individual differences in children. 3. Child development. I. Molfese, Dennis L. 11. Molfese,VictoriaJ. BF723.CS D477 2001 155.4’13-4~21 00-061863 CIP Books published by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates are printed on acidEree paper, and their bindings are chosen for strength and durabiliv.

Printed in the United Statesof America l 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

ment ions

~ynn

er action Impai ~ater~o~se

V

vi

C~NTENTS

Indi~dualDifference in the Developmen Communication Competency in Very Low C~~dren

t

Susan H. Landry C ~ t h i L. a Miller-Loncar f i r e n E. Smith

Individu~Differences in the Development of Executive Function in Children: Le From the Delayed Response and A-no ~ i m ~ e rAndrews ly Espy Paul M. fiufmann

Developmental and Clinical Vaiations in Executive Functions Maril~ C.Welsh

lation Between Language Development Dennis L. Molfese Dana 2 3 , Narter Arlene M o ~ ~ l i n

Naming Abilities inChi1

Robin D. Morris Lorna L ~ a r u s - ~ e n ~icho~as ~rawiec~i ~ a r y a n n Wolf e

Patterns of Language Development Through Augmented Means in Youth With MentalRetardation Mary Ann Romski Rose A. Sevcik

Modeling Developme~taland Individual Variability in ~ e a d i and n ~ Writing Acquisition:A ~ e v e l o p m e ~ t ~ Neuropsycholo~icalPerspective Vir~iniaW gernin~er Robert D. Abbott

v11


changes in cognitive abilities in childhood have long across any fields, including be of interestto rese~chers communications, education, and medicine. With th proaches that include consideration among experts in different fields who bring differe increase an

in research collaborations rts

in different fields abilities.

of cognitive

as a basisfor the early identificationof children at riskfor cognitive delays and for the development and evaluationof intervention approaches.This book reviews literature in five areas of cognition and provides theory- and research-based information on the applications of research ~ndings and intervention approaches to normally developing children and children with development^ disorders. Runningthroughout is infor~ation on the interthe role of indivi~ualdifferences actions of different cognitive abilities and in development that influencesdevelopment assessments. ~t i The first WO chapters discuss the assessmentof a c h i e v e ~ eskills children. In chapter 1, Intelligence and Achievement: M e a s u r e ~ ean ~t ~ r e ~ i c t iof o n~ e v e l o p ~ eVariations nt~ by Molfese andMa~in,the

0th intelligence and achievement are the focus.~ e a s u r eof s inare used to m impo~antdecisions nd achievement children’s abilities, placement in special education e been used to identify children needing inte~enti Chapter 2, Developmental Trends in Teacher P

an evaluation of teacher ~pectationsand student development^ changes so that problems rmance identified. can be The use of these inventoriesby clinicians andeducators is de The next two cha~ters describe develo~mental S insocial s ~ l l s . Cha ter 3, Social ~nteractionImp~rments by Wa and genetic basesfor the de~elopmento provides a model of the skills involved in lopmental disorders (i.e.,D t, and autism)on the developmentof indivi ren by Landry, ille er-Loncar, and Smith, continues lopment of social skills.The behaviors needed to cits, such as those in medically cornpromised children. It describes their research with verylow birth weightchildren which links skills in initiation of social comrnunication with parenting behaviors the and demands cia1 context, to illustrate the complex cognitive skills needed for rnent of social communication. The importance of executive functionskills in tive ab~ities is the focusof the next chapters. Exe behaviors such as planning,i~ibition,moni memo^. Chapter 5,Individual Differences in FunctioninChildren:LessonsFrom the Del continues the discus n childhoo~. Espy and executive ~ n c t i o skills n in infants and young children and evaluate individrences in development. Chapter 6, ~ e v e l o ~ m eand n t ~ClinicalVariations in Executive Functions by Welsh, discusses both normal development

PFEFACE

xi

duringearly c h i l ~ o o d h o u school-ageyeam and c ~ n i c a l v ~ a t i oin ns development as seen in ch heny~etonuria,autism, a~ention deficit h~eractivitydisorde isabilities, epilepsy, and Down syndrome. Both chapters include covemge of the measurement of lls and the neuropsychological implicationsof the The d ~ e l o p m e nof t language and communicationskills impact t velopment of a varietyof cognitive abilities. Chapters7 the development of language skills,how these skills are i development and pathology, and how the language skills of children with m n retardation can be improved. Chapter’7,The Relation Between DevelopmentandBrain Activity, presents idorm neuroelec~oph~iological measures have beeqused to asse ive abilitiesof idants and children, andtheir us tification of cognitive disabilities. Molfese, Narder, and review studies using event-related potentials (EW) in studiesof int abilities, including and e specific speech perceptio velopment and us of predictive models involvi complications, and cognitive behaviors is described. ties in Children With rain Tumors, describesthe to adulthood and presents research rs in childhood compared in assessment of naming abilities in children with brain lesionscon children without lesions. Morriset al. also discuss issues related to selecfor lexical access patterns, and eftion of assessment batteries, implications fects of lesionsite on p e ~ o ~ a n cChapter e. 9, Patterns of L a n ~ a g e Development Through Augmented Means in Youth With Mental Retardation, describes the challenges facing children and youth with moderate and severe mentalret~dation. Finally, the developmentof reading abilities involves multiple skills, each of which can show individual differences in acquisition. idente remediation strategies for children with reading disabi~tiesare increasingly focusing on group level and individual levels of skills development. Chapter 10, odel ling Development and Reading and Writing Acquisition: A Developmental spective, describes and critiques developmental signsusedinstudyingreadingandwriting.Berningerand ~ b o t also t describetheirresearchprograminvestigating in~ndividual,interindividual, and group differences in the development of reading and writing skills. Chapter 11, TheSearchforIndividualandSubtypeDifferencesin to Remediationby Lovett andBarron, Reading Disabled Children’s Response continues the discussion of group and individual differences in the development of reading skills. It’s focus is on the roleof nonreading skills in the de*

*

xii

eresponse to remediation by

read in^

ecom~inin extensive ~

nal research by the auddress important issuesin the devel ifically, seek to unde ise from both normal and ~ a t h o l o ~ i c a l so~rces.It is throu~hsuch comparisons that insi~htsinto the for the early ide~tificationof children and the development of inte~ention

C H A P T E R

CINE

Achievement tests are used by the schools to make important decisions, of children into ing ~ r e l i m i n decisions a~ a ~ o uplacement t programs, and referral for assessments of learning, math, readin

in theirefforts to identify most exclusivelyon intelligence testsan siderable success in identifyrng a of setearly predictors, fant and early childhood measures, that can success childhood inte~igenceand cognitive test scores. to identify a setof predictor variables that can be used early screening batteryfor detection of later learning andot disa~ilities.It is hoped that early detectionwill lead to early and such early remediation efforts will show greater success in effecting positive change than is shown when remediation efforts are started ages. Researchreports have noted considerable success in developi dictive models using inte~igencetests as the criterion measure. Particularly successful havebeen models using measuresof biomedical ri

MOLFESE AND MARTIN

2

ditionsassociatedwithpre socioeconomic status ation

,labor,deliveryandneonatalstatus,

of the quality of the home enUs as the predictor variables, These measures count for up to50% of the variance when used to predict intelligence scores as outcomes. The f o l l o ~ n sections g briefly review the literature reportin of models involvingcomb~ations of biomedical, SES, home e and other measures as predictors of intelli~ence.Following this review,a rationale for extending these models to predict performanceon achieve~ e n tests t and for considering three additionalpredictorvariableslength of time in school, chronological age when the tests are administered, and verbal scores-is presented. Finally, the resultsof this research are discussed. Inthis research, the variables already described are used to ance on intelligence tests andon achievement tests using sample of children who havebeenstudied&ombirth

A

number of studies have examined the e~ectiveness ofbiomedical risk

conditio^, SES index measures, and measures of the q u ~ tof y the home

e n ~ ~ n m easn predictors t of performance on cognitive and intelligence tests. any studies have focused on children characterized by very low erinatal compromise, and/or preterm births. A variety of les have been usedto predict performanceon intelligence tests using scores obtained from normal and “at risk”’ child re^. Crisaf& Drisco~,Rey, and Adler(1987) studied 144 children characterized byvery low birthwei~t( . -

-=?

. c -

"

L

(D

I

RIod

LANDRY, MILLER- LON^, SMITH Bruner, J.S. (1982). The organization of action and the nature of the adult-infant interaction. In E. Tronick (Ed.),Social int~changein infancy:~ e c tcognition, , and communication (pp. 23-35). Baltimore: University Park Press. ~udenbush, S. W. (1992).~ierarchicallinear models: ~ ~ l i c a t i oand n s data a ~ ~ s i s ~ e London: t ~ o d Sage. s . Butterworth, G.(1995). Origins of mind in perception and action.In C. Moore& P. J.Dunham (Eds.), Joint attention: Its origins and role in d e v e l o p ~ n (pp. t 29-40). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Crawford, J.W. (1982). Mother-i~ntinteraction in premature and full-term infants.Child Development, 53, 957-962. Crocken~rg,S., & Litman, C. (1990). Autonomy as competence in 2-year-olds: Maternal correlates of childdefiance,compliance,andself-assertion. Developmental Psychology, 26(6), 96 1-97 1. ge, K. (1985). Facets of social interaction and the assessment of social competence in children. In B. Schneider, K. Rubin, & S. Ledingham (Eds.), C h i 1 d r ~ ’ s pr~lations: e~ issues in a s s e s s ~ n and t i ~ t e ~(pp. ~ 3-22). t i ~New York: Springer-Verlag. , (1980). ~ w - b i r t h w e i ~ t Drillien, C.M., Thomson, A., & B u r g o ~ eK. A lon~tudinalstudy. Developmental ~ e d i c and i ~ Child Neuro Garner, P.W., Landry, S. H., & Richardson, M. A. (1991). The develop skills in very low birth weight infants across the two first years. Infant ~ e h a and ~ ~Deo ~ v e l o p ~ e n t14, , 489-495. Goldberg, S., Lojkasek, M., Gartner, G., & Corter, C. (1989). Maternal responsiveness andsocial development in preterm infants. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.),~ a tresponsiv~ess: ~ l Characteristics and consequences (pp. 89-103). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Greenberg,M. T., & Crnic, K. A. (1988). Longitudinal predictorsof developmental status and social interactionin premature and full-term infants at agetwo. Child Develo~ment,59, 554-570. .B. (1965). Fourfactor index of social status. Unpublished manuscript, Yale Department of Sociology, New Haven, CT. Kopp, C. B. (1990). Compliance and comprehension in very young toddlers. lopment, 61, 1997-2003. Kopp, C, B. (1982). The growth of self-re~lation: A developmental perspective.Developtal Psychology, 18, 199-214. Kuqnski, L., & Kochanska, G.(1990). Development of children’s noncompl~ance strategies: From toddlerhood to age 5. D e v e l o p ~ t aPsychology, l 26, 398-408. K u ~ n s k L., i , Kochanska,G., Radke-Yarrow,N.,& Girnius-Brown,0. (1987). A developmental interpretation of young children’s noncomplicance.~ e v e l o p ~ n tPsycholgy, al 23, 799406. Landry, S. H.(1995). The development of joint attentionin premature low birth weight incomplicationsandmaternala~ention-directingbehaviors. ds.),Joint attention: Its origins and role in development .Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Infant (1988). Visual attention skills and preterm infant risk. *

Landry, S. H., Chapieski,M. L., ~ c h ~ d s oM., n ,Palmer,J., & Hall, S. (1990).The social competence of children born prematurely: Effects of medical complications and parent behaviors. Child Develop~ent,61, 1605-1616. Landry, S. H., Denson,S. E., & Swank, P.R. (1997). Effects of early medical risk and socioeconomic statuson the cognitive development and social communication skills of low birth weight infants. J o u ~ o~Clinica1 l a n d ~ ~ ~ Neu t r oa p sly c ~ o l o19(3), ~ , 261-274. I a n d r y , S. H., Fletcher,J. M., Denson, S,, & Chapieski, L. (1993). Longitudinal outcome for low birth weight infants:Effects of intraventricular hemorrhage andb r o n c h o p u ~ o n ~ ~ ~ p l a s~i ao. u ~ofa Clinical l and ~ x p ~ m ~Neuropsychology, t a l 1.5(2), 205-218.

4. SOCIAL C O ~ U N I ~ ~ O N

Landry, S. H., Garner, P., Swank, P., & Baldwin, C.(1996). Effects of maternal scaffolding during joint toy play with preterm and full-term idnts. M ~ I I - P a Z m ~ ~ u a r42,l-23. t~ly, Landry, S. H., Garner, P. W., Pirie, D., & Swank, P, R. (1994). Effects of social context and mothers’ requesting strategies on Down’s syndrome children’s social responsiveness. DeveZopm~taIPsychoIogy, 30, 293-302. Landry, S. H.,Robinson, S. S.,Copeland, D.,& Garner, P. W. (1993). Goaldirected behavior and perception of self-competence in children with Spina Bifida.Journal of Pediatric PsychoIo~,18, 389-396. Landry, S. H., Smith,K. E., Miller-Loncar, C. L., & Swank, P. R. (1997a). Predicting cognitivelanguage and social growth curves from early maternal behaviors in children vat ~ n g degrees of biologic risk. DeueIopmentaI PsychoIogy, 33, 1-14. Iandry, S. H., Smith, K. E., Miller-Loncar, C. L., & Swank, P. R. (1997b). Responsiveness and t, initiative: Two aspects of social compentence. infant Behavior and D e u e ~ o p m ~20, 259-262. Landry, S. H., Smith, K. E., Miller-Loncar, C.L., & Swank, P. R. (1998).The relation of change in maternalinteractivestylestothedevelopingsocialcompetenceoffull-termand preterm children. ChiId D#eIopment, 69, 105123. Landry, S. H.,Smith, K. E., Swank, P. R., & Miller-Loncar, C, L. (2000). Early maternal and ChiId child influences on children’s later independent cognitive and social functioning. D e ~ e I o p m ~71, t , 358-375. Leung, E. H. L., & Rheingold, H. (1981). Development of pointingas a social gesture.Deuelo p m ~ t a PsychoIogy, I 172, 215-220. Lewis, M., & Goldberg, S. (1969). Perceptual-cognitive development in infancy: A generalP a ~ ~ ~ ized expectancy modelas a function of mother-infant interaction.~ ~ Z Z - Quarterly, 15, 81-100. Maccoby, E.,& Martin, J.A. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family. E. M. In Hetherington (Ed.), P.H, Mussen (Series Ed.),Handbook of chiZdpsychoIogy: Vol. 4. Socialization, p~sonaIity, andsocial deveIopment (pp. 1-102). New York: Wiley. MacDonald, K. (1992). Warmth as a developmental construct: An evolutionary analysis. Child DeveIopment, 63,753-773. Marfo, K. (1990). Maternal directiveness in interactions with mentally handicapped children: An analytical commentary.Journal of Child PsychoIogy and Psychiatry, 31, 531-549. Papile, L., Burstein,V., & Burstein, R. (1978). Incidence and evolution of subependymal and intraventri~larhemorrhage: A study of infants with birth weight less than1500 grams. Journal of Pediatrics, 92, 529-534. Parpal, M,, & Maccoby, E. E. (1985). Maternal responsiveness and subsequent child compliance. Child ~ e v e l o p ~ e n56, t , 1326-1334. Plunkett,J.W., & Meisels, S. J.(1989). Socioemotional adaptation of preterm infants at three years. Infant Mental Health JournaI,10, 117-131. Rocissano, L., & Yatchmink, Y.(1983). Language skill and interactive patterns in prematurely born toddlers. Child Development, 54, 1229-1241. Rourke, P. D., & Fuerst, D. R. (1991). Learning disa~iIitiesandpsychosociaIfunction~ng:A neuropsychoIo~icaI perspective. New York: Guilford. Ruff, H. A. (1988). The measurement of attention in high-risk infants. InP. Vietze & H. G. Vaughan(Eds.), Early ident~icationof infants at risk for mental retardation (pp. 282-296). New York: Grune & Stratton. Nature, Scaife, M., & Bruner, J.S. (1975). The capacityfor joint visual attention in the infant. 253, 265-266. Schaffer, H. R. (1977). Studies in moth~-infantinteractions. New York: Academic Press. Schaffer, H. R., & Crook, C. K. (1980). Child compliance and maternal control techniques. DeveIopmentaI P ~ ~ h o I o g16, y , 54-61.

An explosion of research activity in thearea of attention, memo^, and executive function has been noted since the mid-1980s (Lyon & 1996).The bulk of this activity, however, has focusedon the e~mination of group dHerences in executive skills, with less attention devotedto the

ESPY AND ~

U

F

~

N

tative descriptio~.Many authors identify the unique clinical presentation of PhineasGage,anotherwise unremar~blerailroad worker, as the dawning of modern interest in the brain-behavior relations associated with executive functions (Harlow,1848, 1868). Gage made history when an accidental explosion sent a large tamping iron traversing through his left frontal lobe, causing focal, yet extensive damage. Harlow’s behavioral observations are the only record of the psycho logic^ changes characterized by reduced inhibition and altered personality: The equilibrium o r balance, so to speak, between his intellectual faculties and his animal propensities, seemsto have been destroyed. Heis fitful, irreverent, indulging at timesin the grossest profanity(which was not previously his custom), m a ~ e s t i nbut ~ little deference for his fellows, impatientof restraint o r advice when it conllicts withhis desires, at timespe~inaciouslyobstinate, yet capricious and vacillating, devising many plansfor future operations, which are no sooner arranged than they are abandoned in turn for others appearing more feasible. (IIarlow, 1868, p. 344).

Soon after the injury, Harlow (1848) concluded that Gage’s memory was unimpaired. However, extended observations noted that Gagewould entertain his nieces and nephews with fabulous stories of “his wonderful feats and hairbreadth escapes, without any foundation except in his fancy” (Harlow, 1868, p. 334). Using a formal, psychometric approach, Eslinger and Damasio (1985) the frontal pole investigated patientm,whose orbital frontal surface and tal Tradiwere excised bilaterally,due to a laxge o r b i t o ~ o ~ meningioma. tional neuropsychological batteries, which included measures of executive functions, such as the isc cons in Card Sortin Test (VVCST; Heaton, 1981), demonstrated little, if any, evidence of disturbed h i ~ e r c o ~ i c ~ functions following recovery from surgery. Protocols from repeated follow-up examinations are noteworthy in thatEVR’s performance was strategic, sophisticated, and almost flawless. However, i~ormationprovided by family members, along with observationsof EV”s decision making in everyday life, clearly demonstrated a significant disability associated with his frontal lobe tumor and excision, whichA. R. Damasio, Tranel, andH. Damasio (1990) labeled acquired sociopathy. In children, the investigation of executive skills has much a shorter history. Until the 1980s, many neuropsychologists believed that executive skillsdid not “turn on” or becomefunctional until puberty (Golden, 1981). However, recent studies with various methods and measurement tools have demonst~tedrepeatedly that children possess executive functions (Chelune & Baer, 1986; Levin et al., 1991; Welsh, Pennin~ton,& Groisser, 1991). In addition, lesions to the prefrontal cortex early in life may belesslikely to mimicimpairmentsobservedacutelyfollopving prefrontal lesions in adulthood (Eslinger, Biddle, & Grattan, 199’7). This

5. I N R ~ R RIFFE~NCES U ~ IN CUT^ FUNCTIONS

observation is g, considering that intact central lished that bra1 well to children (Fletcher frontal cortex lesion ~anded boy, had an unremar~blemedical, d

the children’s be

severalcases of e

seizures, and subse surgery, resulting in an arteriovenous m head of the cauda tion). Neuropsych that observed in ked to right frontal cortex, therefore, specific di~cultiesin spatial planning, sequencing, constructional praxis, andmonito~ngduring multist tasks wereprominent, in additionto a classic “adult-like7’ left hemi-spati neglect. Measured inte~igencewas in the High Average Range andconsistent with premorbid expectations (Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised, WISC-R Full Scale IQ = 111; VIQ = 113,PIQ = 106).Patterns of distracted, impulsive, and disinhibited behavior, with tang en ti^ speech, were noted. One of the moreidios~craticbehaviors displayed by an obsessive propensity to sniff everything. Follow-up neuropsychological evaluationof JC, 4 years revealed greatly diminished-yet residual evidence of-sp andspatial attention deficits.Interestingly, these mild er were not apparent when external organkational ~erformance on an executive function battery executive function impairments on many measures, but noteworthy e~ceptionsincluded age-appropriate pe~ormanceon the WCST and the Tower (TOH; Simon, 1975). Socially, JC denied anybehavioral prob commented “I’mnice. I’m a good friend, 17mnice to other people.” However, reports from his parents and teachers revealed persisti with concent~tion,restlessness, and carelessnessinhis problems and aggressive behavior were noted, with JC showing poor appreciation or compliance with age-approp~atenuance and finesse in social s i ~ a t i oHis ~ . parents reported that, “JC doesn’t seem to u n d e ~ t a n ~ a lot of the d y n ~ i c of s his peer groups. He takes thi S very litera~yand pe~onally,” but described him as a happy, loving boy, who was sociable, out go in^, and responsive to his family life (Eslinger et al., 1997). These cases share severalcommonalties, First, general i n t e l l e c ~ other neurop~chologicalfunctions, such as language, sensory abilities,

?

UN..~ I F F E ~ N C EINS

of these cognitive theories includedat least semi-inde

esent distinct c o ~ ~ o n e n t

~sociates(1991)

ture of any de~nition, involve higherorder, integrative con

of a group. Research studies focusing on the average ovide a rich base and may illuminate ~ isubse-~ however, may be of little comfortto parents whoare seeking a better understanding of their child’s problems and/or assistance in remediating these problems. Individual differences traditionally have been c o n c e p ~ a l ~ as e dfactors ndividual to deviate fromthe “average”or mean groupperpel, 1982).In randomized experimental designs, the dee to which an individual varies from the expected group mean is conered error vari~nce.The goal in this type of investigation isto minimize rror variance, thatis, to reduce differences among individuals order in to m ~ m i z ethe h~othesizedgroupeffect. In practice, at least in quasiexperimental, clinical neuropsychologicalresearch, whether the hypothesized effect concerns a “group” or an “individual” is §ornewhat arbitrary. For exam le, the presence of a medicalcondition, such as t ~ u m a t ibrain c ences the manner by which an i n d i ~ d u child ~ deviates from of normally developing peers. Children who have sustained traumatic brain injury also canbe grouped according to injury severity in er to determine therisk for cognitive sequelae (Fletcher& kvin, 1988). reover, within severely braininjured children, those with pupillary abnormalities exhibit greater developmental differences in~ s u o m o t oskill r ative to those without such eye findings (Francis, Fletcher, Steubi dson, & Thompson, 1991).Which level or dimension represents “individual difference”: presence of brain injury, brain injury severity,or pupillary abnormality? This example illustrates that individual daerences in almost any outcome can be demonstrated depending on the m a n ~ e r and/or level at which the independent variable is concep~alized. The c o n c e p ~ ~ i z a t i o n omany f neuropsychological phenomena has been driven by the reliance on medical, diseas~-basedmodels of clinical phenomena in children. For example, dyslexia is the term often used in ’a1 settings to describechildrenwhoare poor readers(Menkes, .Dyslexia historically hasbeen defined as “specific”-that is, as a discrete, biologically uniform category of children children who read poorly for nonspecific, but “ as low intelligence @utter & Yule, 1975).This ease based, as it is thoughtto be present or absen

l

5. I N D ~ D DIFFERENCES U ~ INEXECUTIVEFUNCTIONS

fection (e.g., World Federation of Neurology de~nition;Critchley, 1970). More modern conceptualizations view poor readers as comprising the natural tailend of the normal distributionof reading skills(S. E. S h a ~ t z , , In fact, other medic Escobar, B.A. Shaywitz, Fletcher, & M ~ c h1992). “disease” statesalso may represent a continuumof neuropathology andassociated cognitive sequelae, for example,the degree of white matter damage is related linearly with cognitive outcome children with h~drocephaa lus (Fletcher et al., 1992). Readily accessible, relatively simple, traditional statistics, suchas t test and analysisof variance (ANOVA), also have promulgated discrete, groupbased designs that focus on average performance diffe between groups.The researcher may be compelled to form“artificiupsin order to conduct these analyses. The problem is not in the statistics, in that the artificial groupingmay not reflect the phenomena under study. In fact, many independent variables in neuropsychological research arecontinuously distributed and therefore are amenable to designs that relate individual differences in the independent variableto differences in outcome. ~ u l t i p l regression e is one such design that utilizes the inherent variability in both the independent anddependent measures. There are many naturaily occurring grouping variablesin qu~i-experimentalresearch, which when considered in more detail can be analyzed as a continuum. When a child’sneuropsychologic~development is considered in a iongitudinal context, individual variab~ityoccurs at many levels. Individuals may differ in the ageof onset of the emergence of skill development,the rate of development, the level of proficiency at any given shape of the trajectory of skill acquisition.When taken toget dividual differences yield various developmental patterns (Satz, Fletcher, Clark, & Morris, 1981).It is only recently with the advent of flexible and relatively accessible hier~chical or multilevel modeling techniques (Bryk & Raudenbush, 1992; Goldstein, 1995)that these individual differences in the patterns of skill development can be studied (e.g., Espy, Riese, & Francis, 1997; Francis, S. E. Shaywitz, Stuebing, B. A. Shaywitz, & Fletcher, 1996).Furthermore, these techniques can be used to investigate individual differences, which are nondevelopmental, but that also are nested at several levels (e.g., individual children in various classrooms within different schools). Presumably, it isthese individual differences in development thatcomprise important variability in outcome. Fletcher (1997)proposed that the ~ n d ~ e n t a l s t ~ c t u r e - ~ relations n c t i o n andthe mechanisms for individual v~iability differ ndividual variability,then, may result from phenoms t ~ c t u r e - ~ n c t i orelation, n but nevertheless are ena not related to a n important in predicting outcome. For example, the relation of injury severity in traumatically brain injured children andoutcome is well ~o~

may be observed ~ e ~ o r m a di~erences ~ce among

5. I ~

B BIFFE ~

~

U

~

this c h a ~ t focus~s ~r on uaf ~ ~ ~ r e in ~~rfor c ~ s

c

el

N

n

el

ect ~ v i s ~gaze, a l ratherthan. e a s ~ ~Inethese . s ~ d i e sa,pr (~~2-rnon.th-old) and older f the reward, that is, looked

ly long delay inte~als (15 and 70 seconds) largeon et d.,1990). HofstadterandRezni R, 5-month-old infantsident~ed reliably object location,if gaze direction is used as the dependent m e ~ u r e . In terms of skill ma~ration,Pi out 12 months of age, no longer this age, infants are able to represent the object as independent of their own search s t ~ t (Le., e ~object permanence), an therefore are able to find the reward at anygivenlocation.However,iamond (1990a) proposed thatthe AI3 error could be demonstrated inolder child sufficientlylongdelaybetweenhidingand r e t ~ e ~ aEspy, l. ~ c ~ i a r m iand d , Glisky (1999) found that 2- to 5-year-old chi1 error with a 10-second delay. Out of l 0 trials, the 2-year-old children made from0 to 7 errors. The 5-year-old children, made 0 to 2 errors. Therewassomeindicationthatpeewasconstrained at the older ages as a ceiling was reached, whichperfectperformancewasachievedvariedmarkedly school children. These findings lend s u p p o ~ to ~iamond’s Taken together, thesestudiestthat i n d i ~ d variabili~ u~ in AI3 performance parsed be can to onset, level of proficiency at the givenage endpoint, rate of ,andshapeof the developmental trajectory. Researchers, to least, have not exa rates and patternsof change in indi~dualperformance .Given that the unit of measure is on a ratio scale (the number of trials, or seconds of delay), such data are well suited inrecen~ly developed techni¶ues such as hierarchical modeling. These modeling techni¶uesallow the e~mination of develo~ment chan~eand permit a more sensitive measure of indi~dual d~erences, which may illuminatetheunderlying de mentalprocess of executive Eunction development in infants and

ter Indi~dualdifferences occur as a result of phenomena other th solely related to development. Sex d~ferencesare probably widely studied indi~dualdifference (Stumpf,1995). AB performance has been demonstrated t iffer in infants by sex. Girl error was demonstrated. that 86%of the girls made the AI3 error at ’7%months, wh males could not search for the hidden reward. A longer in order to elicit theAI3 error in female infants, by ond, 1985). The same, sex-dependentpattern has been iamond & Doar, 1989).

4.

INDIVIDUAL DIFFE~NCES IN EXECUll"E FUNCTIONS

27

Other interindi~duali ~ u e n c ealso s affectAI3 performance. Matthews, Ellis, and Nelson(1996) found that healthy,low risk preterm infantstolerated longer delays before exhibiting the AI3 error than full-term infants. Matthews et al. concluded thatbetter AB performance by preterm infants was related to the greater extra-utero experience (testingwas conducted at the corrected age). Furthermore,Ross, Tesman, Auld, and Nass (1992) found that appro~matelytwo thirds of their sample of 10amonth~old preterm infants with and withoutsubepend~al or intraventricu~arhemorrhages were unable to find the reward on two out of three reversal trials. Only 13% of full-term infants exhibited this responsepattern. Of the children who succeeded on this task, however, there were no d~erences in the delays required to consistently exhibit the AI3 error. Espy, ~ u ~ a nand n ,Glisky (1999) examined AB performance in prenatally cocaine-exposed toddlers. Cocaine-exposed toddlers made more perseverative errors and erred perseveratively for more consecutive trials on AI3 relative to nonexposed controls. Toddlers who were exposed in utero to cocainealsoobtained fewer correctsets,butthiseffectwas nonsig~icantwhen verbal intellectual abilities were controlled statistically. In a sample of infants with early and continuously treated phenylk~tonuria,mild h~e~henylalaniemia, siblings, and matched and general popu~tioncontrols, Diamond, Prevor, Callendar, and Druin (1997) found that infants with eitherpheny~etonuria or mild h~e~henylalaniemia required longer delays to successfully retrieve the reward and performed more rlycompared to all control comparison groups. As toddlers, performance differences only were apparent in children with pheny~etonuria with high phenyl~aninelevels &er2 1 months of age, comparedto toddlers with lower phenyla~ninelevels and control groups. McEvoy, Rogers, and ~ e n n i n ~ o(1992), n however, found no differences in DR or AB performance among autistic, c~ronolo~cally age-matched developmenta~ydelayed, and verbal abili~matched preschool control children. In this study, no delay was used between hiding and retrieval, which may have contributed to the null findings. To our knowledge, the impactof other individual difference variables, such as race or socioeconomic status,has not been exn amined, whichis critical inorder to understand the effectsof the.en~ronR ment on AI3 and DR performance variability.

When. indi~dualsperform similarly on two tasks, the tasks often are inferred to be related, sharing some common measurement characteristic, M a ~studies y have examined patterns of performance on AI3 and on pertinent comparison tasks in order to understand what cognitive abilityunderlies AB ~erformance,For example, Diamond (1990b) compared per-

on onelateral side. Similarto A B , a manual reachi p e r f o r m ~ c eon OR is not considered rocesses because there is no delay and t ~ h i l the e i ~ a n res t onds. The i ~ a n must t i ~ i ~the i ttenden

es did not differ o ~ c l u that ~ e rei ~

to reach

correct responses. Hofstadter and Rea

t ~ e c t e the d l~~lihoo ofdperseve~tive

of the efferentconnectio

5. I N ~ ~ DIFFE~NCES D U ~ INEXECUTIVEFUNCTIONS

Both AB and DR share a well-defined relation to dorsolateral prefrontal cortical function (Diamond & G o l d m a n - ~ c 1989; , Goldm 1987). For example, perseverative searching behavior on AB an has been observed in frontally ablated adult monkeys( D i ~ o ~ intact and frontally ablated infant monkeys ( D i ~ o n d 1986), and intact human infants, from age 7% to 12 ,1985; Diamond & Doar, 1989). On the basis of these findings, Diamond(1990a) concluded thatAB and DR perfo~ancesin to l~-month-oldinfants are related to frontal lobe immaturity. Individual differences in M3 performance also have been related to variability in frontal lobe function,as measured by resting frontalEEG activity and increased anteriorto posterior EEG coherence (Bell& Fox, 1992). Bell and Fox (1992) found that the infantswho required the long delay inorder to display the A B error evidenced: decreased right frontal power in the resting EEG signal between 7 and 8 months of age, greater increases in bilateral frontal EEG power each month between 9 and 10 months of age, and greaterpower in theEEG signal from the left occipital lead across6 the months of the study, relativeto the i d n t s who displayed theA€3 error after a short delay. Therewere no dserences in signal power from the parietal recording sites. When averaged across the fronta~pa~etal and f r o n t ~ o c cipital leads, signal coherence initially decreased between 8 and 9 months of ageand then increasedinthelefthemisphere between 10 and 12 months of age. Coherence did not change between 9 and 10 months. The length of F3/P3 coherence was U-shaped in left hemisphere,whereas the h of the F3/01 coherence was stable.In the right hemisph~re,FQ02 sites were more coherent than F4/P4. The short-delay group, who tolerated, on average, a %second delay before exhibiting the AB error at l 2 months of age, showed decreasedpower at the rightfrontal lead siteonly between 10 and 11 months of age. These findings suggest t ual differences in executive behavior are alsomanifested in however, the ongoing relation between development of cortex and changes in AB or DR. performance remainsto be investigated. There are many changes in the structure and ~ n c t i o nof the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex that occur during late infancy, concu~entwith

young infants. Bell andFox (1992) found infimts who solved the AB problem without a delaybefore 8 months of age, differed inthe ~ o u noft signal power at the right frontal lead at8 months of age from those infants who solved the AB problem at older ages. However, Bell and Fox did not find that EEG power or coherence differed betweenthe last age at which was unable to be solved and the age at which AB was solved initially on any lead site. Bell and Fox (1992) found no relation between the age at which maximal OR pe~ormance was achieved and the delay tolerated on m. Furthermore, frontal EEG power and coherence among frontal and other electrode sites were unrelated to performance on OR and response i ~ i b i t i o n to novelty tasks. Bell and Fox concluded that thedorsolateral prefrontal cortex was unrelated to performance on OR. In light of Fletcher’s(1997) f o ~ u l a t i o of n individual differences, may it be that differences in OR perf o ~ a n c may, e in fact, be relatedto the inhibition compo~entof AB and DR pe~ormance. I~ibition, however, may not be subserved by the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, but may remain an important co~tributorto executive function performance differences among individual children. The well-developed relation of ABiDR and the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex is unusual in most neuropsychological work. The application of to study such neuroscience paradigms offers a rich methodology by which executive function development in indi~dualchildren ~ u f m a n et n al., 1989). However, tasks must be developmentally sensitive, in a like mann , and Glisky ner as AB and DR. For example, Espy, ~ u ~ a n~cDiarmid, (1999) found that performance on a Delayed Alternation task was sensitive to development in preschool children and was not related to verbal intellec~alskill. Performance on this task,however, was not successful in discriminatingamongschool-agetraumatically brain-injured children with frontal lobe lesions (kvin et al., 1994). In that study,Levin cautioned as children tried to that the task may not have been valid in this age range, “out think” the simple alternation problem. The demand characteristicsof any given taskmay influence heavilythe sensitivity to individual performance differences.

The investigationsreviewedsuggestseveraldirections of inquirythat should be pursued in order to better understand the nature of individual difZerences in executive function in children. First,the Andings from AB and DR indicate that individual differencesare manifest at several levels.

5. I N ~ M ~~I FUF E~ ~ N C E INS EXECUTIVE FUNCTIONS

Individuals may differ in the age of skill acquisition, the level of profie, the rateof development, or mor The d~ferences were apparent on ined longi~dinally ,1996; att the components of executive function, th development. In order to a administered at eac techniques, suchas st~ctural equation or used (Goldstein, 1995; McArdle, 1996). There are, however, inherent dif3culties in usingother executive tion measures in longitudinal studies. For example,one hallmark o eral of the executive function definitions is the synthesisof novel i ~ o ~ a tion. The repeated administ~tionof any executive function i n s t ~ m e may render the task lessnovel, especially in older children. M e r the ta has become familiar, the task may no longer measure executive skills. Perhaps a mixed cross-sectional, longi~dinal design would be more useful in ling the developmental and practice effects. ~ternatively,the may be suited uniquelyfor longi~dinaluse. between: hiding and retrieval may be adjusted r to maintain sensitivity acrosswide a age range, predistorting the measurement characteristicspiafmann, McDiarmid, & Glisky, 1999). In addit' trieval principle also may be increased with fmann et al., 1989). For example, in B D R , the infant simply res the reward at the observed location across trials. In the more complex variant, ~ e l a y e dMatching to Sample, familiar and novel are placed on top of the well covers as cues to signal reward location.I n v ~ a b l the increased task complexity will produce different patterns of develop pro~ciencies( J a n o ~ k y1993), , whichmaybe related somewhat ently to brain function than the more simple tasks. However, this paradigm is a powerful tool by which to investigate executive skill development across age. Second, given the diverse definitions of executive function (Lyon negor, 1996), one way to better understand how indi~dualchildren r in executive functions is to trace skill development back to that which is observable early in development. Investigationsof p e ~ o ~ a n c e on represent such efforts. Unlikesomeofthe other executivefunc,B D R has not been usedextensively to documentinterinditio vidual differencesin pe~ormance,perhaps relatedto its history inthe developmental and neuroscientific literatures. Other more complex tas such as TOH (Simon, 1975) and WCST (Heaton, 1981), have been used routinely in studies of interindi~dualdifferences, pa~icularlyin various

where p~blematic de~nitional issue

cularly for inte~entionresearch. It is

remar~ble de~elopm~~t, co~cu~en

The m a ~ eby r which

5. IN

tesbirthandcontinuesthr

d e t e ~ i n i n whether g or not organic factorswere playing a role in an older person's behavioral difficulties; the need to devise ways to help a patient who had sust~neda stroke to recovery hisher lost hnctions; the need to fathom why a school childof adequate general inte ' o re n ~ a g i n ~ in self-defeatin i n e ~ ~ l i c a~isturbances bl~ in 1987, p. IT;?.

E

Borkowki, J.G., & Burke, J.E. (1996). Theories, models, and measurements of executive functio~ng:An information processing perspective. In G. R. Lyon & N. A. Krasnegor (Eds.), Attention, memory, and executive f u ~ t l o n(pp. 23S262). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes, Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). ~ i ~ a r c h i c linear al models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Chelune, G. J.,& Baer, R. A, (1986). Developmental norms for the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test. J o u ~ a of l Clinical and ~ p ~ ~N e ut ~ pa~ c hl o l o g8, y , 219-228. Chugani, H. T., & Phelps, M.E. (1990). Imaging human brain development with positron l Nuclear Medicine, 32, 23-25. emission tomography. J o u ~ aof Critchley, M. (1970). ?Be dyslexic child. Springfleld, IL:Thomas. Damasio, A. R., Tranel, D., & Damasio, H. (1990). ~ndi~duals with sociopathic behavior causedbyfrontaldamagefail to respond autonomically to socialstimuli. Behaviour Brain Research, 41 (2), 81-94. Diamond,A. (1985). Developmentof the abilityto use recall to guide action, as indicated by infants’ performance on AB. Child Developm~t,56, 868-883. D~amond, A. (1990a). The development and neural bases of memory functionsas indexed by AB and delayed responsetasks in human infants and infant monkeys. AnnaZs of the New York Acderny of Sciences, 608, 267-317. Diamond,A. (1990b). Developmental time course in human infants and infant monkeys, and the neural bases of inhibitory control in reaching.Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 608, 637-4576. Diamond,A., & Doar, B, (1989). The performanceof human infantson a measureof frontal cortex function, the delayed response task. D e v e l o p m ~ t a l P s ~ c h o ~22,271-294. iolo~, Diamond, A., & Goldman-Rakic, P. S. (1986). Comparative development of human infants and infant rhesus monkeysof cognitive functions that dependon the prefrontal cortex. Neurop~chologicalAbstracts, 12, 274. Diamond,A., & Goldman-Wc, P, S. (1989). Comparisonof human infants and rhesus monkeys on Piaget’s AB task: Evidence for dependence on dorsolateral prefrontal cortex.Exp ~ m ~ tBrain a l Research, 14, 24-40. Diamond, A., Prevor, M. B., Callendar, G., & Druin, D. P. (1997). Prefrontal cortex cognitive deficits in children treated early and continuously for PKU. onog graphs for the Society for Research in Child D e v e l o p ~ n t 62(Serial , 252). Ernbretson, S. (1983). Construct validity: Construct representation versus nomothetic span. Psychological Bulletln, 93, 179-197. Eslinger, P. J. (1996). Conceptualizing, describing, and measuring components of executive function: A summary. In G.R.Lyon & N. A. Krasnegor (Eds.), Attention, fmmory, and exe c u t ~ v e ~ n c t i o(pp. n 367-396). Baltimore: Paul H.Brookes. Eslinger, P. J.,Biddle, K. R., & Grattan, L. M. (1997). Cognitive and social development in children with prefrontal cortex lesions. In N.A. Krasnegor, G. R. Lyon, & P. S. GoldmanRakic (Eds.), D e ~ e l o p m of ~ tthe~refrontazcortex: volution, ~ u r o b i o l oand ~ , behavior (pp. 295-336). Baltimore: Paul H. Brmkes. Eslinger, P.J.,& Damasio,A. R. (1985). Severe disturbanceof higher cognition after bilateral frontal lobe ablation: Patient EVR. Neurology, 35,1731-1741. Espy, K.A., Kauhann, P. M., & Glisky, M. L. (1999). Neuropsycholo~ical function in toddlers exposed to cocaine in utero: A preliminary study. D~velopmental Neuro~s~chology, 15, 447-460. Espy, IS.A., ~ u f m aP.~M.,, M c D i ~ i dM, , D., & Glisky, M. L. (1999). Executive functioning in preschool children: A-not-B and other delayed response format task performance. rain and C o ~ ~ t l o41, n , 178-199. Espy, K.A., Riese, M.L., & Francis, D. J.(1997). Neurop~chologicaldevelopment in preterm neonates prenatally exposed to cocaine. Infant BehaviorandDevelopm~t,20,297-309.

5. I N D ~ D DIFFE~NCES U ~ INEXECUTIVEFUNCTIONS

or in chiZdren with deveZopm~Fletcher, J. M. (1997, August). ~ r a i ~ e h a v irelationsh~s tal disabizities~concepts and methods. Paper presented at the American P ~ c h o l o ~ c a l Association, Chicago, IL. Fletcher, J. M,, Bohan, T. P., Brandt, M. E., Brookshire, B. L., Beaver, S. R., Francis, D. J., Davidson, K.C., Thompson,N. M., & Miner, M.E. (1992). Cerebral white matter andcognition in hydrocephalic children. Archives of NeuroZogy, 49, 818-834. Fletcher, J. M., & Levin, H. S. (1988). Neuro~havioraleffects of brain injury in children. In D. K.Routh (Ed.),~ a n d ~ ofpediat~cpsychology o o ~ (pp. 258-298). NewYork: Guilfo Fletcher, J. M., & Taylor, H. G. (1984). Neurop~chologicalapproaches to children: Towards a developmental neuropsychology.Journal of Clinical NeuropsychoZogyl 6,39-56. Francis, D. J.,Fletcher, J.M., Steubing, K. K.,Davidson, K. C., & Thompson, N. M. (1991). Analysis of change: Modeling individual growth.Jouma1of Consultingand ~1inicaZP y CbOZom, 59, 27-37. Francis, D. J., Shaywitz, S. E., Stuebing, K.K.,Shaywitz, B. A., & Fletcher, J. M. (1996). Developmental lag vs. deficit models of reading disabilities: A longitudinal, individual, and growth curves analysis.Journal of EducationaZ PsychoZogy, 88, 3-17. Fuster, J. M. (1985). The prefrontalcortex and temporal integration.In A. Jones (Ed.), Cerebral cortex (Vol. 4, pp, 151-177). New York: Plenum. In G. W. Golden, C.J.(1981). The Luria-Nebraska Children’s Battery; theory and formulation. Hynd & J. E. Obrzut (Eds.),NeuropsychologicaZ assessment and the school-agechild (pp. 277-302). New York: Grune & Stratton. Goldman, P, S. (1974). An alternative to developmental plasticity: Heterologyof CNS structures in infants and adults. In D.Stein, J.Rosen, & N. Butters (Eds.), PZasticity and recovery offunction in the central nervous system (pp. 149-174). NewYork: Academic Press. Goldman, P. S., & Rosvold,H.E. (1970). Localization of function within the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex of the rhesus monkey. E ~ ~ ~ nNaroZogy, t a Z 27, 291-304. Goldman-Rakic, P. S. (1987). Development of cortical circuitry and cognitive function. Child ~eveZopmentl58, 601-622. Goldstein, H. (1995). ~uZtiZeveZstatisticaz models (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley. Graham, S,, & Harris, K.R, (1996). Addressing problems in attention, memory, and executive functioning: An example from self--regulated strategy development. In G. R. Lyons & N. A. Basnegor (Eds.), Attention, memory, and executivefunction (pp. 349-366). Baltimore: PaulH. Brookes. Gratch, G., Appel,K.J., Evans, W. F., LeCompte,G. K.,& Wright, N. A. (1974). Piaget’s stage IV object concept error:Evidence of forgetting or object conception. ChiZd ~evelopmentl 45, 71-77. Harlow, J. M. (1848). Passage of an iron bar through the head. Boston ~ e d ~ c and a 2 Suqical J o u ~3~ 9,,389-393. Harlow, J. M. (1868). Recovery from the passage of an iron bar through the head.Publication of tbe ~ a s s ~ c h u s e tMedicaZ ts Society, 2 , 327-347. t, Harris, P. L. (1973). Perseverative errors in search by young infants.Child ~ e v e l o ~ e n44, 28-33. Hayes, S. C., Gifford, E. V.,& Ruckstuhl, L. E. (1996). Relational frame theory and executive function: A behavioral approach. In G.R.Lyons & N. A. Basnegor (Eds.), Attention, memoryl and executive function (pp. 279-306). Baltimore: Paul H.Brookes. Heaton, R. K. (1981). WisconsinCardsorting Test manual: Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Hertzog, C. (1985). An individual diEerence perspective: Implications for cognitive research in gerontology. Research on Agingl 7 , 7-45. Hofstadter, N.,& Reznick, J. S. (1996). Response modality affects human infant delayedresponse performance. ChiZd Development, 67, 646-658.

,M. L. (1994).~ ~ iof co~itive c s d~elopment: A u n ~ n approach g to universal trends and individualdBerences. Special Issue: Developmental perspectiveson individual differences in learning and memory, ~ea~in and g I ~ i v i ~~ i ~ ~l ~ ~6(3), c e s , 36~36~.

A. S. (1997).~ e l o p m e n ~ of a pn ~a f~ r~o ycortex. n ~ In .R. Lyon, & P. S. G o l d m a n - ~ (Eds.), c Deve~opmentof tbe~efrontul ~ u r o b i o l oand ~ , bebavior (pp. 69-83).Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. The developmentof neural basis of memory systems. In M. H. Johnt a d cognition (pp. 665~78). Cambridge, E n ~ a n dBasil : I)

Bla~ell. ~ ~ P,, Leckman, n , J.M., & Ort, S. I. (1989).Delayed response performance in males with Fragile-X. J o u ~ olf Clinical and ~ ~ ~ ~ e um r o p ~~ c b o Zt12, o ~ ,69. ~ l u ~ aP, ~ M., ,Fletcher, J. M., Levin, H. S., Miner, M. E., & EMg-Cobbs, L, (1993). Attentional d ~ ~ r b a nfollowing ce pediatric closed head injury. Jou~Z of ChiZd ~euroZppel, G. (1982).Design G analysis;~esearc~er’s b a ~ b o (2nd o ~ ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prent~ce- ha^.

,H. S., Culhane, K. A., Fletcher, J. M., Mendelsohn, D. B., Lilly, M. A., Hmard, H., Chapman, S. B., Bruce, D. A., ert to lino-Kusnerik, L., & Eisenberg, H. M. (1994).Dissociato tion between delayed alternation and memory &er pediatric head injury: Relationship A. J., H m d , H.,Ringholtz,

tests of p u ~ ~frontal e d lobe hnctioning. ~ e u e Z o ~ ~

t t h e ~A., , Ellis, A. E., & Nelson, C. A. (1996).Development of preterm m d full-term in-

& Pennington, B. F. (199

ung autistic ~ i l d r e n , ~ o u M e ~ e sJ., H.(1985).T ~ x ~ boof cbiltz o ~ n e u r o l o ~(3rd ed.). ~h~adelphia: Lea &L Febiger.

(Eds.), Atte~tion,

ent ti on and m e m in~ ~

tions in the d e v e l o ~ ~ eof n t~ e o r ~ e s ,

basic ~ s u m ~ t i o n%e s. ~ i i n i ~ a Z

~ e ~ ~ ~ s 6, y ~259-275. ~oZog~st,

H. Brookes. ~ search ~ and t object We~man,H. Mi., Cross, D., & Bartsch, K. (1986). I of the A-not-Berror. ~ o n o g ~ a pof h sthe S o ~ e ~ ~ o ~ ~ e s e a r c ~ meta-an~sis

~ ~ ~ ~ ~7(2), h 1o31-i149o. ~ , Ueates, K. O., B i ~ m e ~ t e iE., n , Patterson, C. N., ~ s ~ ~ ~ oSa&@@, Z o ~I ,i ~ a ~ eiazo, P. D., Rezn~ck,J. S.,


C H A P T E R

S I X

arilyn C. Welsh ~ ~ ~ u eofr~~ ~~ rt yt Colorado b e ~

he same route every evening as you return home fro ,you can engage in conversation with a passe along to the radio or argue with the talk-radio host, plan di dream, and so on. This kindof routinized activity does not demand a great deal of conscious attention, strategic thinking,or flexible action, although this is not an endorsement for engaging in such concurrent activities. In contrast, if this routine drive is perturbed by a t d k accident, a snow,last minute errands that must be completed on the way home, then k has nowbecome an activity that engages executive functions (e. planning, generating and monitoring strategies, inhibiti tions, and flexible shifting to more appropriate ones). who normally adopt a “defensive driving” strategy, in actions are anticipated and their own potential responses are planned, the nction system is continuously active. still somewhat controversial, itis proposed in this chapter as it has been elsewhere (e.g., Welsh & Pennington, 1988) that infants and young children utilize executive functions, albeit primitive versionsof the adultactivitiesthatsubserve goal-directed, future-oriented behavior. When a 9-mont~-old reaches for a stuffedtoy, the behavior is drivenb the a1 of play. However, executive functions are tapped to a en the infant must generate and flexiblyexecute the pla der to retrieve the toy (e.g., push away a pillow, pull on the blanket on which the toy lies). Similarly, once the rules of a simple board

TO

TOL

P; x;

C

X

Welsh et al. (1990) Goel & ~ ~ (199 r kvin et al. (1994) Welsh et al. (1999)

n

~

6.

S

6.

CU’ITVE F U ~ C ~ O N S

hat require: planningor decision

er @atbehavior in~olvesan

ctive re-oriented beretri~vinga toy or a 30-

Pennington (1994, 1998; Pennington et al., 1996) discussed the @. 6). That is, there is a veritable of the “uncon§trained frontal metaphor” f § ~ p t o mthat s can follow frontal injury or dys~nction and en subsumed under the umbr~lla executive of ~ n c t i o nCO .

6. ARENAS OF C O ~ F O I ~NT~ O L E S C E ~ ~ E

onious ~ a n n ~t r , Ions of i ~ i ~ i t i o ~

ter

6.

Lsw

6. V ~ ~ O INNE SSE C U W FUNCTIONS

ning andorgan~edsearch of an external stimulus displayexhi levelperformance as early as age 6. The two tasksthatprimarily demanded i ~ i b i t i o nskills matured by age 10. However, tasks that requ~ed more c o m ~ l e xplanninthe organ~edsearch o f l o n ~ t e r m ~ e m o r y i~ormationdid not re adult-level p e ~ o ~ a n by c eage 12. Finally, a recent study by Luciana and Nelson (1999) explored th ided working memory systems” age 4 to 8. Although the authors the cognitive domain d as “working memory,” the bro tasks used in this study pre mably required a variety of executive function skills,such as planni inhibition, and fle~bility,in workingmemory. A sampl f 181 childrenbetween age 4 smaller sample of teen and young adults were tested on a set of mea~europsychologicalTest Automated Batte a1 tasks included spatial memoryspan, spat1 London, and a intradime t with the earlier studies provements observed in performanc dependent on the nature and demands of the particular task. poorly than5- to ?-year-olds on was as proficient as older childre utive function measures (spatialspan, si owever, asign~cantimprovement was S on more complex tasks that seemed to introduce additional d n, and f l e ~ b i l(e.g., i ~ more d ~ c u l troblems from the TOL, spatial workingmemory). Moreover, 8-year-olds an adult level of pe~ormance on these more difficult exe ting a later development^ shift or shifts in performance. ies have explored the development of executive function skills by e ~ m i n i n gdevelopmental trends on established neurops~choa logical measuresof frontal lobe function. The task most closely associat~d with frontal lobe function is the WCST, and three studies have yielded very consistent results with regard to development of performance. Chelune and colleagues (Chelune&:Baer, 1986; Chelune &:Thomps et al. und that adult-level performance on the index mance, perseverative errors, was achieve Levin et al. (1991) found a significantdecrease in persever tween their 7- to 8-year-old group and their 9- to 121-year-old ~isk-transfer tasks, suchas the Tower of London (TOL) and of Hanoi (TOH), are relatively recent additions to the frontal assessment literature. These tasks require that a start state is transformed to a goal state via a correct sequenc f moves.Although the TOH andTOLhave face validity as planningta there is a need for empirical va~dationof

6.

CUTWE F U ~ C ~ O ~ S

mation while inhibiting the i n t ~ s i o of n potentia~ycompeting sequences of working memory abilities in children have been h the verbal and visuospatial domains. ACCO itch (1974) model, verbal working memory the ~ticulatory loop in conjunction with the the nonverbaltasks are mediatedby the visuospatial the central executive. Hitch and colleagues (Hitch, Halli,& Schraagen, 1988; Hitch, ~ o o d i n&, Barker, 1989) suggestedthatvisual WO emory develops atan earlier 5, visual sti sed that by age the visual working memory system. However, it takes for control processes to develop that mediate a transfer of visual ationfrom the visual to the phonologic^ w o r ~ n g ch et al., 1989). The authors maintain that by age 10 to 11, children are more likelyto translate visuali ~ o ~ a t iinto o n an auditory-verbal code for processing in ver 1988). gradual developmen Unlike the memory over the school years, Hitch and colleagues su ested in 1989 that there was ingly little, if any, maturational *

*

There is relatively little recent litera

memo^ in youngchildren; however, the findingsof one study are consi

tent with the notion of very early ~nctional develop~ent of this system. Using the radial maze task asa measure of spatial man, Warry, and Murray (1990) found some evidenc abili~ in children as youngas 18 months; however, there was a linear increase in performance from 18 months to about 5 years of age. It is internote that the radialmaze task not only requires the childto mainmanipulate the search plan in spatial w o r ~ n gmemo^, but it also demands inhibition of the prepotent response to return to reviousl rea t i o ~~. u ~( 1e9 9r ~ e~plored ) spatial worki ren with the Mr. Cucui task (Diaz, 1974; cited task in whichthe childrenwere shown the Mr. Cucui arts marked and, followi ocations on a blank mod a linear developmental pattern of ~erformance on this fore, the results of two studies that memo^ in the first 5 years of life conver dual improvement in skill. In c o n t ~with t theHitch et al. (1989) proposal thatthere is little develo~mentalimprovement in visual working memory after age 5,Case (1992) discussed studies by Crammond (1992) and Menna (1989) that demon-

6. V ~ ~ O INN WCUTIVE S FUNCTIONS

l

Development of inhibitory processesin young children primarily has been studiedwithself-controlandresistance to temptationparadi rally tap the “withholding” dimensionof inhibition. nhibition that requires ding a response and lly has focused on sc children, although examined this CO of inhibition in young children as well ( ~ u n e&Welsh, o 1992; Gerstadt, Hong, & Diamond, 1994). Inhibition in early childhood traditionally has been assessed by means of self-control paradigms, alsoreferred to as delay of grat~cationor resistance to temptation (Mischel & Patterson, 1979). In the typical task, children are presented with an attractive stimulus or activity and is told that they must waitfor a period of time before approaching the object or enin the activity, frequently with an added incentive to do so. Selfl is operationalized as the amountof time the child can delay various approach behaviors (touching, eating,etc.). According to Olson and colleagues (Olson, 1989; Olson, Bates, & Bayles, 1990), self-control behavior in children may reflect two relatively independentsources of normal variation: an inhibitory control ability that is closely tied to cognitive development and a predisposition toward complying with internalized social ex~ectations. Kopp (1982) proposed a developmental model of self-regulation besting that it emerges at about age2 in conjunction withrepthought and the ability to recall i~ormation(e.g., social rules, prohibitions,expectations)from lon~termmemory. This early man~estationof self-control was confirmed by the research of Vaughn and ~ a u g h nKopp, , & Krakow, 1984; Vaughn, M o w , Kopp, Schwam, 1986) in which a very rudimentary and unstable form of delay behavior was observedas early as 18 months and a cant improve~entin self-control was demonstrated between age 2 According to Kopp’s model, a more flexible form self-re~lation of that includesself-monitorindappropriateadjustments to c 3 to 4.Interesti encies would notparentuntilage and Trudel (1991) found that, among children as youngas age 295, those who p e ~ o ~ the e dbest on self-control ks did so byusingaflexible strategy of shifting their attentionduri he delay period. Therefore, tasks thatp r ~ a r i l require y the withholdingof a response elicit evidence of inhibition in children fromas early as 18 months and thisskill appears to develop until about age 4.Flexible shifting canhelp a very young child inhibit an approachresponse, but this strategyis usually not seen until the preschool years.The classic self-control paradigm is an effective means of demonstrating inhibition in young children, but there appears to be little development in the behaviors elicited by this type of task &er age 4 (Logue & ~hararro,1992).

found to “drive”

involves

the

additi~n o

6.

QNS IN E

~ F U N C ~CQ N S

~

ory studies indicate efficientinhi~i-

and and spontaneously. Inconthe activationof inappropriate !y until age 9 (Johnson, 1994). tern of develo~ment of inhi~i7' to 11. One could specul~te lu~ing facial e~~ressions) may

nt of i n h i ~ i t ~rocesses, o~

of i~elevant lin~istic and m later. As is discussed in the

exnce of the lite~tures on

two subsections on research thathas explored working memory and inhibition i m p a i ~ e n t sin child clinical groups, withan emphasis on how these literatures converge with,and diverge from, the literature on executive function deficits.

Research exploring specific executive function i m p a i ~ e n t sin disorders o f c h ~ d h o o d p r i has m ~focused ly on three clinical groups that vary in the specificity with which the neurologic dysfunction has been identified. Of the three conditions, the genetic disorder p h e n y ~ e t o n ~ r(PKU) ia reflects the most well-specified modelof a prefrontal d~function(e.g., Chamove Molinaro, 1978; Diamond et al., 1993; Diamond et al., 1997; Welsh, 1996). The subtle prefrontal d~functionis assumedto be the result of the neurochemical consequences of a very specific genetic ~ u t a t i o nthat appears to reducelevels of functionaldopamine se et al., 1985). It has been proposed by several research groups thatthe second clinical condition, Attention DeficitH ~ e r a c tDisorder, i ~ ~ may represent a frontallobe d~functiondisorder (Gualtieri & Hicks, 1978; Mattes, 1980; R o s e n t h ~& Men, 1978; Stamm & Kreder, 1979; Welsh, 1994). This hypothesis has been based on behavioral s ~ p t o m a t o l (Douglas, o~ 1983, 1988), dopa, mine deficiencies (S. E. Shamtz, B. A. Shamtz, Cohen, & ~ o u n g1983), and neuroimaging evidence of hypofrontality (Lou, Henriks 1984); however, it is not without its critics(e.g., Oades, 198 ~ p o p o r t1987). , The third child clinical condition, autism, troversial with regard to the core neuropsychological impairment (e.g., l a n ~ a g esocial , cognition, or executive function),which has led to d ent hypothesesregardingneurobiologicalmechanisms(Pennington Welsh, 1995). However, recent researchhasconverged on a possible prefrontal cortex dyshnction as manifested by executive function deficits (e.g., Ozonoff, Pennington, & Rogers, 1991). Research specifically designed to examine the prefrontal dysfunction model of early treated PKU generally has revealed significant executive ~ n c t i o nimpairmentsthatareunrelated to neral intelligence. Welsh, ~ e n n i n ~ t oOzonoff, n, Rouse, and McCabe (1990) found tion deficits in a groupof early treated 4- and 5-year-old compared to I~-matchedcontrols. Poor p e ~ o m a n c e such tasks as TOH, visual search, and verbal fluency, and many perfomance scores were negatively correlate^ with plasma phenylalanine (Phe) level at the time of testing. In a longitu~inalstudy, Diamond and coles (1993, 1997) revealed executivehnction impairments duringthe i ~ n c ytoddler, , and preschool periods of development, and again,these related to concurrent Phe level inthe early treatedPm group. The execw

6. V ~ ~ Q INNE S ~

C FUNCTIONS U ~

tive ~ n c t i o nm~asures sed in this study could be characterized

ave consistentlyshown executi

dation, autistic childr~nappe

,so much so that thisde~citin

as de-

io

6. V

~

~ IN ~

N

S

+

c.1

c.1

c.1

c.1

x

c.1

+

b

c.1

6.

ONS IN E

~

C

U

~

of i n ~ i ~ i t i and o n fl on verbal working

LSH

S

cutive unction,

X X

x x X

?

X

x ?

x ?

X ?

X

x

s

x

~ o ~ EF e ;= executive ~nction; = working memo^; “pure”inhib = inhibition ; does not include the demandfor f l ~ i ~ P~ mi =~ ~henylketonu ;LD = learning d i s a b ~ iRI3 ~ ;= reading DS = Downs Syndrome;X = evidence o co~istei nn~research findings of impai~ent.

6.

S

memo^ and inhibi-

or inhibition, it becomes clear that it is often the case that mation into the

cult to interpret. Are ns are erm mane only if these indepgndent cont~butorsto pe counts reviewed earlier in the chapter h ory and i ~ i b i t i o ninteract because they

6. V ~ T I O N SINEXECUTIVEFUNCTIONS

speculated that measuresof flexibility are contexts in which this interaction occurs. Finally, the degree to which other measures of executivefunction, such as visual search, verbal fluency, and planning tasks demand ory and/or inhibition processes must be addressed. For exam has been referred to as a planning task, but the cognitive comprising“planning”havenever been entirely clear (e.g., S F ~ e d ~ a&n Wallner-~len, , 1997). It would appear that plan quence of moves prior to action, as is required by the TOH, wou ources for generating, monitoring, and revisi ,198‘7). However, empirical evidenceof an ass memory andTOH performance has been mixed; one stud found asignificant correlation between TO and one verbal ,Welsh, Retzlaff,& Cookson, 199‘7) and another th spatial working memory tests (Welshet al., 1999 Furthermore, there is evidence that subjectswho perform well on able to inhibit direct movesto the goal, anddefer them to a oel & man, 1995; Welsh, 1991; Welsh, Cicerello, Cuneo, rennan, 1995). There is some evidence that inhibition and flexible s h ~ i isnrelated ~ to TOH pe~ormance(Welsh et al.,1999). Given th tracted course of development and the clear pattern of deficits inthe t “frontald ~ ~ n ~ groups, t i o n it ~would ~ be of great valueto undersea cognitive processes underl~ingperformance on this task.

The objective of this chapter wasto explore the developmental and clinical ~ i a t i o nin s executive function, a nascent constructfor which several operational de~nitionsexist. The controversy surroundingthe conceptualization of executive function was reviewed, with a specific focus on the proposal that working memory and inhibition might serve as amore parsimonious description of the cognitive functions mediated by the frontal cortex. To examine this proposal, the intersections among the three domains in terms of developmental patterns and clinical man~estationswere explored, and it appears that there are interesting convergenc~s. derstanding of the typical and atypical developmentof frontal lob tion will be facilitated by a more precise definitionof the execut tion construct,whichshouldinclude closer attention to the WO memory and inhibition components.Current and future executive function tasks must be examined more carefully with respect to their demands for these component processes.oreo over, there must bean appreciation for the complex nature of the developmental emergence of executive

CUT^ F~NCTIONS

6,

of Hanoi performance of retarded young adults andno~etardedas a Eunctionof solution length and goalstate.Jo~

and response to novelty in autist~c

cbology, 4, 161, 173. enter, P. A,,&Just, M. A. (1989).The role of working memory sion. In D. Klahr & K. Kotovsky (Eds.), Comple~i n f o ~ t i o n p (pp. 3148).Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum ~sociates. H e r ~A.~ S~mpson t New York: Academic Press. Case, R. (1985).~nteZZect~l u'evelopm~t. Case, R. (1992).The role of the frontal lobes in the regulation of cognitive development. rain G Cognition,20, 51-73. Chamove, A. S., & ~ o l ~ n a r iT.oJ. , (1978).Monkey retarded learninga n a l ~ i s . ~ o u of^^~l tal D e f i c i ~ Resea~ch, 22,223. Chelune, G. J., & Baer, R. L. (1986).Developmental norms for the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test, J o ~ of ~Clinical l G E x p ~ m e n t a l N e u r o p ~ c ~8, o l219-228. o~, Chelune, G. J., F e r ~ s o nW., , Koon, R., & Dickey, T. 0. (1986).Frontal lobe disinhibition in attention deficit disorder. Child ~ ~ c b i and a t Human ~ Developm~t,16,221-234. Chelune, G, J.,& Thompson, L. L. (198'7). Evaluation of the general sensitivity of the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test among young and older children. Developmental Neuro~sychol-

0 0 , 3 , 81-90.

Chugani, H. T. (1994).Development of regional brain glucose metabolism in relationto behavior and plasticity.In G. Dawson & K.W. Fischer (Eds.), Human ~ebQvior a uelopfngbrain @p. 153-175).New York: Guilford. Cohen, J.D., & Servan-Schreiber, D.(1992).Context, cortex, and dopamine:A connectio~st approach to behavior and biology in schizophrenia. fsycbological Review; 99, 45-77. Conway, A. R.,& Engle, R W. (1994).Working memory and retrieval: A resource dependent l mental ~ ~ c b o l General, o ~ : 123, 254-373. inhibition model. J o u ~ of Costa, P. T,, Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1988).Personality in adulthood: A six-year longitudinal on the NE0 personality invento~,Jou study of self-reports and spouse ratings s o ~ l i and t ~ Sociai f s y c h o l o ~ , 3 8793-4300. , Cournoyer, M., & Trudel, M. (1991).~ e h a v i ocorrelates r~ of self-control at 33 months. Infant ~ehaviorG Developme~t,14, 497-503. Crammond, J. (1992).Analyzing the basic cognitive development^ processes of children e mind's staircQse:~ p l o ~ n g withspecificrypes of learningdisability. In R. Case ( the c o n ~ e p t ~ l u ~ e ~ i n nof i nhgusm a ~t b o u ~ h t mleu'ge @p, 285-303). Hillsa

ro

of ~ n d o n - s u b ( DA~ standardized :

o assessingexecutive ~nctioningin c h ~ d ~~rchives n. of Cli~icaZN e u ~

young children: ~velopmentaland n ~ u r o p ~ ~ o l o gperspectives. ~cal C ~ iStudy l ~ J o u m l , 22,73-91. ane em an, M,, & Carpenter, P. A, (1980).IndividualdiEerencesinworkingmemoryand

WELSH Davis, D. D., McIntyre, C. W,, Murray, M. E., & Mims, S. K.S. (1986). Cognitive styles in children with dietary treated pheny~etonuria.E d u c a t i o ~ and l Psychological Research,G, 9-15. Dawson, G., & Fischer, K. W. (Eds.). (1994). H u m a n behavior and the deueloping brain, New York: Guilford. Dehaene, S., & Changeux,J.P. (1991). The Wisconsin Card Sorting Test: Theoretical analysis and modeling inaneuronalnetwork, Cerebral Cortex, 1, 62-79. Dempster, F. (1993). Resistance to interference: Developmental changes in a basic processing mechanism. In M. L. Howe & R. Pasnack (Eds.), ~ m ~ i themes n g in c o ~ i t i v devele opment: Vol. I, F o u n d a t i o ~(pp. 3-27). New York:Springer-Verlag. DencMa, M. B. (1996). Biological correlates of learning and attention: What is relevant to learning disability and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder?. Journal of D e v e l o p ~ t a l G ~ e h a ~ i o rPediatrics, al 17, 114-1 19. Diamond, A. (1991). Guidelines for the study of brain-behavior relationships during development. In H. S. Levin, H. M. Eisenberg,&A. L. Benton (Eds.), Frontal lobefunction and d y s f u ~ t f o n(pp. 339-378). New York:OxfordUniversityPress. Diamond, A., Hurwitz, W., Lee, E. Y., Bockes, T., Grover, W,, & Minarcik, C. (1993, April). C o ~ i t i u deficits e on frontal cortex tasks in chikirm withear~-treated PKlX Results of two years of l o n g i t d i ~ l s t d Paper y . presented at SRCD, Los Angeles, CA. Diamond, A., Prevor, M. B., Callender, G., & Druin, D. P. (1997). Prefrontal cortex cognitive deficits in children treated ear@ and continuously for PKU. onog graphs of the Socfetyfor Research in ChiZd D~elopment,@(4,Serial No. 252). Diamond, A., Werker, J.F., & Lalonde, C, (1994). Toward understanding commonalities in the development of object search, detour navigation, categorization, and speech perception. In G. Dawson & K. W. Fischer (Eds.), H u m a n behavior and the deueloping brain (pp. 380-426). New York:Guilford. D i u , S. (1974). Cucui scale: Technical~ ~ n u a l ~ u l tAssessment f l i n g ~ Program. l Stockton Unified School District,Stockton, CA. Douglas, V. I. (1983). Attentional and cognitive problems. In. M. Rutter (Ed.), D e ~ e l o p ~ ~ tal neuropsychiatry (pp. 280-329). New York:Guilford, Douglas, V. I. (1985, April). Attention deficftdisorder. Invited address at the annualmeeting of theSocietyforResearchin Child Development, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Douglas, V. I.(1988). Cognitive deficits in children with attention deficit disorder with hyperactivity. In L. M. Bloomingdale & J.Sergeant (E&,), Attention deficit disorder: Criteria, cognition, i n t ~ e n t i o nA. book s u p p l ~ e nof t theJournal of Child Psychologyand Psychiatry (No. S). New York:Pergamon. Engle, R. W., Carullo,J.J.,& Collins, K.W. (1991). Individual differencesin working memory forcomprehensionandfollowingdirections. Journal of Educational Research, 84, 253-262. Everett, J., Thomas, J., Cote, F.,Levesque, J.,& Michaud, D. (1991). Cognitive effects of p ~ c h o s ~ m u l a medication nt in hyperactive children. Child P s y c h i a t ~G ~ u m a Develn opment, 22,79-87. Faust, D., Libon, D., & Pueschel, S. (1986-1987). Neurop~chological ~nctioning in treated pheny~etonuria.I n t ~ t f oJournal ~ l of Psychiatry in Medicine, 16, 169-177. Fiducia, D., & O’Leary, D. S. (1990). Development of abehaviorattributed to thefrontal lobes and the relationship to other cognitive functions. Developmental Ne~ropsychology, G, 8 5 9 4 . Flavell, J.H.(1971). First discussant’s comments. Whatis memory development the development of? H u m a n Development, 14, 272-2’78. Foreman, N.,Warry, R., & Murray, P. (1990). Development of reference and working spatial memory in preschool children. Journal of General Psychology,l1 7 , 267-276.

6. V ~ ~ O INN S CUTIVE FUNCTIONS Frith, U. (1972). Cognitivemechanismsinautism: ~perimentswithcolorandtonese160-173. quence production.J o u ~ofl Autism G Child Sch~opbrenia, 2, cortex, mediator of cross-temporal contingencies. NuFuster, J. M. (1985). The ~n

N e u ~ & i o l o4,~ ,

Gathercole, S. E., & Adams, A. M. (1993). Phonological working memory in very young chil770-778. dren. ~evelopmenta Gerstadt,Hong, L., C. Y. .(1994). The relationship between cognition and o years old onStroop-like a day-night test. Cogniaction: Performance tion, 53, 129-153. Gholson, B., Levine,N., & Phillips, S. (1972). Hypothesis, strategies and stereotypes in disa l psycho lo^, 13, 423-446. crimination learning.Journal of ~ p ~ m e n t Child Gnys, J.A., & Willis, G. (1991). Validation of executive function tasks with young children. ~ e v e l o p ~ ~Neuropsycholo~, tal 7, 487-501. Goel, V., & Grafman,J. (1995). Are the frontal lobes implicated in “planning” ~nctions? Interpreting data &om the Tower of Hanoi. Neuropsychologia,33, 62-42?. G o l d m a n - ~ cP,, S. (1987).Development of cortical circuitry and cognitive function. Child ~ e v e l o p ~58, t ,601-4522. Gorensteln, E. E., Mammato, C. A., & Sandy, J. M. (1989). Performanceofinattentiveoveractive childrenon selected measures of prefrontal-type function, J o u ~ofl Clinical psycho lo^, 45, 619-4532. Grodzinsky, G.M., & Diamond, R. (1992). Frontal lobe functioning in boys with attention~ , 427-445. deficit hyperactivity disorder. evel lop mental N e u r o p ~ c h o l o8, Gualin, C. A., & Campbell, T, F. (1994). Procedure for assessing verbal working memory in ~ e r c e ~ t uG a l MotorSkills, 79, normalschool-agechildren:Somepreliminarydata. 5544. Gualtieri, C. T., & Hicks, R. E. (1978). N e u r o p h ~ a c o l of o ~methylphenidate and a neural substrate for childhood hyperactivity.Psychiat~cClinicsof North America, 6,8754392. Halberstadt, A. G., Grotjohn, D. K.,Johnson, C. A., & Fruth, M. S. (1992). Children’s abilities Jou l of Nonver&alB e h a ~ o r16, , and s ~ t e g i eIn s managing the facial display of affect. 215-230. . ‘*. Harnishfeger,K. K., & Bjorkhnd, D. F. (1993). The ont newed approachto cognitive development.In M. L. themes in cog~itivedevelopment: Vol.I. Founda Verlag. Harris, E. L., Schuerholz,L. J., Singer, H. S., Reader,M. J., Brown,J. E., Cox, C., Mohr,J., Chase, G. A., & Denckla, M. B. (1995). Executive hction in children with Tourette syndrome andlor at~ntiondeficit hyperactivity disorder. Journal of the ~ n t ~ t i o nNeuropsychologi~al al Society, l , 5 11-5 16. Hermelin, B., & O’Connor,N. (1970). Psychological experiments with autistic c b i ~ r e n . New York: Pergamon. Hitch, G.J., Halliday, S., Scaafstal,A.M., & Schraagen,J. M. (1988). Visual working memory in young children. Memory G Cognition, 26, 120-132. Hitch, G. J.,& McAuley, E. (1991). Working memory in children with specifrc arithmetic^ learning difficulties. B ~ t i s h Journal of Psychology, 82, 375-386. Hitch, G.J.,Woodin, M. E., & Baker, S. (1989). Visual and phonological components of working memory in children. Memory G Cognition, 27, 175-185. Hughes, C,, Russell, J., & Robbins, T. ‘W.(1994). Evidence for executive dysfunctionin autism. Neuropsychologfa,32, 477, 492. Hulme, C, (1984). Developmental differences in the effects of acoustic similarity on memory chology, 20, 650652. (1992). Working memory and severe learning di~iculties. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

in the child: Significanceof analytic and reflectiveatti~des.PsychoZogicaC~ono~ruphs, U. (1989).C o ~ i t i v processing e deficits in reading dis~i~ties: heses. rain G C~gnition,11, 2 ~ ~ 2 9 3 . pler, M. D. (1998).~ s e s s i n gexecutive f u n c t i o ~using the Stroop, ~0~~ of ond don, ~ h i ~ d3~~eenh ~ v i o r ~ u e s t i and o n ~~ie~hea, ~ iRating or Inventory of ~ x e ~ t i Funcve tions. Unpublished master’s thesis, ~ n i v e r sof i ~Northern Colorado, Greeley, CO. mberg, D. Y., &c Farah, M.J. (1993).A unifted accountof cogn~tivei m p a ~ e n t fs o ~ o ~ n g frontal lobe damage:Therole of workingmemoryi ex, organ~ed behavior.JournaZ of ~ P e ~ ~ e P~choZom: n ~ a Z ~ e n ~ a122, Z , 41 Klahr, D.(1978).Goalformation,planning,andlearnireschoolproblemsolvers or: “My socks are in the dryer”. In R. S. Siegler (Ed,), ChiZ~ren’s thin~ing: hut deveZops? man.

C. B. (1982).Antecedents of self-re~lation: A developmental perspective. ~ e ~ e Z o ~ P s y ~ h o Z o18, ~ , 199-214.

Freides, D., &c Elsas, L.J. plasma phenylalanine in phenylalanine andbrain

J,M.,Culhane, K. A., Chapman, S. B.,

siveness in preschaol ch~dren.

o m8, ~ S ~ 2 9 , dysphasia and/or a ~ e n ~ deficit o n disorder. Archives o ~ ~ e ~ r o Z 41,

6.

impulsivity as a construct. ~ v a ~ineLearning s & ~ehavioralDisabiZit~es,3,57-94. R. (1988). Preschoolers' strategies of attention on a same-d~erent P ~ c ~ o l24, o 628-633. ~ , effects of frontal lobectomy in man. In J, Warren & K.Akert (Eds.), n e frontal g r u n u ~ cortex r and behavior @p. 313-334). New York: M c G r a ~ - H ~ . Mischel, W,, & Patterson, C. J. (1979). * self-control in children. In W. A. Collins (Ed.), ~ i n n e ~ osymposia ta on (Vol. 11, pp. 199-230). ~ ~ l s dNJ: ~ e , Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Morra, S., Moizo, C., & Scopesi, A, (1988).Workingmemory(ortheMoperator)andthe p l a ~ i n of g children's drawings,J o u ~ aof l menta^ ChfldP s y c ~ o l o46,414'3. ~, Mutter, B. S, (1998). Why do t ~ r e e ~ e a r - o lfaiZ d s false-beZief tasks: Inhibition or work~ng ~ e ~ Unpublished o ~ ? master'sthesis,University of Northern Colorado, Greeley, CO. Norman, D., & Shallice, T.(1986). Attention to action: Willed and automatic control of behaviour.Centerforhuman i ~ o ~ a t i processi on (TechnicalReport No. 99). Reprinted in revised form in R. J. Davidson, G. E. Schwartz, D. Shapiro (Eds.), C o ~ ~ oand~ ~ s s se~-regulation(Vol.4). New York:Plenum. Oades, R. D. (1987). Attentiondeficitdisorder with hyperactivity: The con~ibutionof chatecholaminergic activity. Progress in ~ e u r o b i o l o25J7 ~ , 365-391. Olson, S. L. (1989).Assessment of impulsivity in preschoolers:easureconvergences, lon~itud~ stability, n ~ and r e l e ~ n c to e social competen~e of ClinicalChild Psychologyr 18, 176-183. Olson, S. L.,Baytes, J.E., & Bayles, K.(1990). Early antecedent of childhood impul$ivity:The role of p a r e n t ~ h ~i~teraction, ld cognitive competence and temperament.Jou ild P ~ c h o l o18, ~ , 317-334.

28, 1021-1034.

OzonoB, S., & Jensen, J. velopment~disorders

Ozonoff, S., & McEvoy, R.

mind development in

Ozonoff, S., & Strayer,D. L. (1997). I n h i b i t o ~ ~ n c t i oinnn o ~ e t a r d children e~ with auti~m. J o u ~ofl A u t i s ~a

Passler, M,A., Isaac, W., a ~ i b u t e dto frontal 349-370.

D ~ v e l o ~ ~ e n t a l D i s o27, r d ~59-77. s,

WELSH

on, D. A., Yafee, L. S., Loveland, K. A., & Norton, A. (1995). Covert visual a~entionin children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: Evidence for developmentalimmaf the prefrontal cortices: Implica-

prefrontal cortex: volution, neu~biology,and ~ e h a v f o (pp. r 265-281).Baltimore:

Brookes. PeMington, B. F.,Benneto, L., M d e e r , 0 K . .,& Roberts, R. J. (1996). Executive functions R Lyon & N. A. andworkingmemory:Theoreticalandmeasurementissues.InG. r (Eds.),Attention, and executivef u ~ t i o n (pp. 327-348). Baltimore: m

e

m

o

r

y

F

Pennington, B.F.,Groisser, D., &Welsh, M. C. (1993). Contrasting cognitive deficits in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder versus reading disability.Developmental Psychology, 29, 511-523. Pennington, B. F., & Ozonoff, S, (1996). Executive functions and d~velopmentalpsychopathology. J o u ~ofl Child P ~ c h o l G o~ Psychfutry G AZlied D i s c ~ l i ~37, s , 51-87. Pe~ington,B. F.,van Doornick,W. J.,& McCabe, E. R. B. (1985). Neurop~cholo cits in early treatedpheny~etonuricchildren. herdcan Journal of ent tal D e f ~ ~ ~ ~ , 89, 467474. PeMington, B. F.,& Welsh, M. C. (1985). Neurop~chologyand developmental psychopathology.In D. Cicchetti & D. J. Cohen(Eds.), ~ a n u a of l de~elopmentalpsychopathology (Vol. 1, pp. 254-290). New York: Wiley. Perecman, E. (Ed,). (1987). Z%efrontal lobes revisited. New York: IRBN Press, Perret, E. (1974). The left frontal lobe ofman and the suppression of habitual responses in verbal categorical behavior. ~europsychologia,16, 527-537. Prior, N.R., & Hoffman, W. (1990). Neurop~chological testing of autistic children through an exploration with frontal lobe tests. Journal of Autism and D e v e l o p ~ n t aDisorders, l 20, 581-590. Reader, M. J.,Harris, E. L., Schuerholz,L. J., & Denckla,M. B. (1994). Attention deficit hyperactivitydisorderandexecutivedysfunction. Developmental ~europsychology,10, 493-512. Ris, M. D., Williams, S. E., Hunt, M. M., Berry, H. K., & Leslie, N. (1994). Early-treated pheny~etonuria:Adult neurop~chologicoutcome.Journal of Pediat~cs,124,388-392. ~nctioningin children diRobbins, P. M. (1992), A comparison of behavioral and attentional a l psycho lo^, 20, a ~ o s e as d hyperactive or learning-disabled.Journal of A ~ n o ~Child 65-82. Roberts, R. J., Hager, L. D., & Heron,C. (1994). Prefrontal cognitive processes: Working memory and inhibition in the antisaccade task. J o u m l of ~ p ~ m e n tPsychoZo~: al General, 123, 374-393. Roberts, R. J., & Pennington,B. F. (1996). An interactive framework fore~mining prefiontal ~ , 105-126. cognitive processes. Developmental ~ e u r o p s y c h o l o12, Rosenthal, R. H., & Allen, T. W. (1978). An examination of attention, arousal, and learning d ~ ~ n c tofi hyperkinetic o ~ children. Psychological ~ulletin,85, 689-715. Rumsey, J. M, (1985). Conceptual problem-solving in highly verbal, nonretarded autistic men. J o u ~ aofl Autism and Developmental Disorders, 15, 23-36 find in^ in h Rumsey, J.M., & amb burger, S.D. (1988). Neurop~cholo~cal Journal of Clinical and ~ p ~ m ~ t a l autistic men with infantile autism, residual state. ~europsychology,10, 201-221.

6. EXECUTIVE V ~ ~ O IN N S

FUNCTIONS

3

Rumsey, J. M., & Hamburger, S. D. (1990). Neuropsychological divergence of high-level autism and severe dyslexia.JoumaZ ofAutism andDeveZopmentaZDisord~s, 20,155-168. Schachar, R., & Logan, G. D, (1990). Impulsivity and inhibitory control in normal development and childhood psychopathology. ~e~ZopmentaZ PsycboZogy, 26, 710-720. Schachar, R. J., Tannock, R.,& Logan, C. (1993). Inhibitory control, impulsiveness, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. CZinicaZ PsychoZogy Review, 13, 721-739. Schachar, R., Tannock, R., Marriot, M., & Logan, G. D.(1995). Deficient inhibitory control in attentiondeficithyperactivitydisorder. JoumZ of A b n o ~ ZChild PsychoZogy, 23, 411437. Scholnick, E. K.,Friedman, S, L., & Wallner-Allen, K.E. (1997). What do they really measure? A comparative analysis of planning tasks. In S. L. Friedman & E. K. Scholnick (Eds.), The deve~opmentaZpsychoZo~ ofpzanning:When, howand why do w e p ~ n @p. ? 127-156). Hillsdale:NJ:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates. Shallice, T., & Burgess,P. (1991). Higher-order cognitive impairments and frontal lobe lesions in man. InH. S. Levin, H. M. Eisenberg, & A. L, Benton (Eds.),FrontaZ Zobe~nction and d y s f u ~ t i o n@p. 125-138). New York: Oxford University Press. Shaywitz, S. E., Shaywitz, B. A., Cohen, D. J., &Young, J. G.(1983). Monoamine~icmechanismsinhyperactivity.InM.Rutter (Ed,), DeveZopmentaZ neuropsychiat~(pp. 330-347). New York: Guilford. Shue, K. L., & Douglas, V. I. (1992). Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and the frontal lobe syndrome. Brain 6. Cognition,20, 104-124. Siegler,R. S. (1983). I~ormationprocessingapproachestodevelopment.In W. Kessen (Ed.), Paul H. Mussen handbook of chiZdp~choZo~: VoZ 1. History, theory, and metbods @p. 129-211). New York: Wiley. Siegel, L. S., & Ryan, E. B. (1989). The development of working memory in normally achieving and subtypes of learning disabled children. Child DeveZopm~t,GO, 973-980. Spreen, O., Risser, A. H., & Edgell, D. (1995). D e v e Z o ~ ~ t a Z ~ U ~ p s y c h oNew Z o gYork: y. Oxford University Press. Stage, S. A., & Wagner, R. K,(1992). Development of young children's phonologic^ and orthographicknowledge as revealedbytheirspellings. De~eZopmentaZPsychoZo~,28, 287-296. Stamm, J. S., & Kreder, S. V. (1979). Minimalbraindysfunction:Psychologicaland neurop~ologicaldisorders in hyperkinetic children. In M. S. Gazzaniga (Ed.), ~ a n d ~ k of behavioraz neuroZogy: Vol. 2. ~europsychoZogy(pp. 119-150). New York: Plenum. Stemerdink, N. B. A., van der Molen, M.W., Werboer, A. F.,van der Meere,J.J., Huisman,J.,de Jong, L W., Slijper, F. M.E., Verkerk P. H.,&van Spronsen, F,J. (1999).Prefrontal dyshnction in early and continuously treated Phenylketonuria. D ~ e Z o p ~ t a Z ~ ~ ~ p 16, syc~oZo~, 29-57. Stuss, D. T., & Benson, D. F. (1984). Neuropsychological studiesof frontal lobes.PsychologicaZBuZZetin, 35, 3-28. Stuss, D. T., & Benson, D. F.(1986). Thefiontal lobes. New York:Raven. Stuss, D. T., & Benson, D.F. (1987). The frontal lobes and the controlof cognition and memory. In E. Perceman (Ed.), The frontal lobes revisited (pp. 141-158). New York: IRBN Press. Sutton, S. E.,& Davidson, R. J. (1997). Prefrontal brain asymmetry: A biological substrate of thebehavioralapproachandinhibitionsystems. PsychoZogicaZ Science, 8, 204-210. Swanson, H. L., Ashbaker, M. H., & Lee, C. (1996). Learning-disabled readers' working memory as a functionof processing demands.Journal of Experimental CbiZd PsychoZo~,61, 242, 275. Swanson, H. L., Cochran, K. F., & Ewers, C. A. (1990).Canlearningdisabilitiesbedetermined fromworking memory performance? Journal of Learning DisabiZities, 23,5947.

S ~ n s o n H. , L., & Trahan, M. (1990). Naturalistic memory in learning disabled children.

~ e a ~ i Disability ng Quarterly, 13, 82-95. S z a ~ a r iP., , Tuff, L., Finlayson, M. A.J., & Bartolucci, G. (1990). Asperger's syndrome and J o u ~ aof l tbe ~ e ~ c Academy a n of ~ b i l a d autism: ~ e u r o c o ~ i t iaspects. ve cent F s y c ~ i a t29, ~ , 130-136. Tannock,R.,Schachar, R., Carr, R. P., Chajczyk,D,, & Logan,G.D. (1989). l methylphenidate on inhibito~control in hyperactive children. J o u ~ of Child F ~ c ~ o l o g17, y , 473-491. Tannock, R., Schachar, R., & Logan, G. D. (1995). Methylphe~date and cognitive flexibility: Dissociated dose effects in hyperactive children. Journal of Abnormal ChildF ~ c b o l o ~ , 23, 235-266. Tipper, S. (1985). The negative priming effect: Inhibitory priming by ignored objects. Quarterly Journal of E ~ p e ~ m ~ t a l F ~37A, c b o571-590. lo~, Tramontana, M. G., & Hooper, S. R. (1988). Child neurop~chologicalassessment: Overview n t in child of current status. In M. Tramontana & S. Hooper(Eds.), ~ s e s s ~ issues New York: Plenum. n ~ r o p s ~ c ~(pp. o l o3-38). ~ In. J. Warren & K.Akert Tueber, H. L. (1964). The riddleoffrontallobefunction i (Eds.), The frontal granular cortex and bebavior @p. 40). New York:McGrawHill, Umetani, T., Kitao, S., & Katada, A. (1985). Discrimination shift learning and response inhibio u ~ aof l tion of moderately and severely mentally retarded and non-retarded Jchildren. tal ~ e ~ c i e n Research, cy 29, 219-224. Vaughn, B. E,, Kopp, C.B., & Kralcow,J. B. (1984). The emergence and consolidation of selfcontrol from 18 to 30 months of age: Normative trends and individual differences. Cbild ~evelopment,55, 990-1004. Vaughn, B.E., Krakow,J. B., Kopp, C. B., Johnson,K,, & Schwartz, S. S. (1986). Process analysis of the behavior of very young children in delay tasks. ~ e ~ e l o p m e n tFsycbology, al 22, 752-759. Vitiello, B., Stoff, D., Atkins,N., & Mahoney, A. (1990). Soft neurological signs and impulsivity in children.J o ~ r n aolf ~ e v e l o p ~ n t Ga lBehavioral Fediat~cs,ll, 112-1 15. Walker, P., Hitch, G., Doyle, A., & Porter, T. (1994). The development of short-term visual memo^ in young children. Special issue: The development of w o r ~ n ger no^, ~ ~ t i o ~J lo u ~ ofl E~bavioralDevelopment, 17, 73-89. Welsh, M. C, (1991). Rule-guided behavior and self-monitoringon the Tower of Hanoi disktransfer task. Cognitive ~evezopment,6, 59-76. In N. Jordan Welsh, M. C. (1994). Executive function and the assessment of attention deficits. & J. Goldsmith-Phillips (Eds.),New directions in tbe assessment and t r e a t ~ notf learning d i s a ~ i ~ i t i(pp. e s 21-42). New York: Alp & Bacon. EuroWelsh, M. C. (1996). A prefrontal dysfunction modelor early-treatedpheny~etonu~a. pean J o u ~ a olf Pediat~cs(Specfa1 Section),155, 87-89. on Welsh, M. C., Cicerello,A., Cuneo, K., & Brennan, M. (1995). Error and temporal patterns the Towerof Hanoidisk-transfer task: Cognitivem e c h a ~ sand ~ s individuald~erences. J o u ~ ofl General Psycbology,122, 69-81. Welsh, M. C., & Pennington, B. F. (1988). Assessing fiontal lobe fbnctioning in children: 4, 199-230. Views fiom developmental psychology. Developm~tal Neurop~c~ology, Welsh, M. C., Pennington,B. F., & Groisser, D. B. (1991). A normatived~elopmentalstudy of executive function: A window on prefrontal function in children. ~eveZopmenta1 Neurop~cbology,7, 131-149. We .F., Ozonoff, S., Rouse, B., & McCabe, ed phenylketonuria Specific ~ecutive 1713,

t

~

-

CUlWE FUNCTIONS

6.

Zametkin,A., & Rapoport,J.(1987).~ e u r o b i o l of o ~attention deficit disorder with hyperactivi :Where have wecome in 50 y e a r s ? ~ o #of~the l canA c ~ e of~ Ch y cent P s y c h i a t ~26, , 676-678. Zelazo, P. R,Kearsley, R. B., & Stack, D.M. (1995).Mental r e ~ r e s e n t a t i ofor ~ visual sequences: I n c r e ~ e d speed of central processing from 22 to 32 months. I ~ t e l l i ~ ~20, ce, 41-63.

Zibovicius, M., Garreau, B., Samson, , . ' l Remy, P., Barthelemy, C., Syrota, A., & Lelord, G, (1995).Delayed ma~ration the of frontalcortex in childhood autism.~ ~J o # ~ c al of P ~ c h i a t152, ~ , 248-252.

a

~


H A P T E R

S E V E N

or decades, investigato believed that if they could accura age and cognitive disorders e for inte~entionto correct S well as the l~elihoodof success resulting from that int be greater. Such a belief has spawned many attempts to nitive skills in the preschool and early elementa of behavior^, medical, and physiolo natalperiod (D. L. Molfe Fox, 1987;Sostek, Smith, ever, few procedures have accom lished the traditional screeni h true positive and low false ative rates in their have success~lly ntified only those children who would laterexperience poor developmentaloutcomes while n ther children for later inte~entionwho did not require i ures, although sometimes yielding §tatistically sign~can duced low correlations between measures later scores on childhood Ian age and co~nitive tests (Si n re~essionmodels are con cted using these lan tive scores as the criterion measures andthe va easures as the predictors, nces in the perfo ortions of the children teste ~ c a n teven l ~ when testsare used

ctives, butthere is a senseof e science and its failure to ad This chapter focuses attentionon studies invest e and the event-related potential its of adult studies, but the spec of the indi~dual from early in infancy and whether used to predict future intellectual perfo~ance.

ERP has been used extensively t The a u d i t o ~ tive processes(D.L. Moifese, 1,983). The ERP EEG pattern thatis detectable diatelyinresponse to some a u d i t o ~stimulus Koslovv, 1978; Rockstroh, Elbert, Bi cause of its time-lockedrelation to the demons~atedto reflect both general and sp iusandtheperceptionsanddecisions ;D. Molfese & Betz, 1988; D. 0, 1985, 1986; Nelson & *

conducted in the late 1960s generally indicated the presence of some r e l a t i o ~between IQ, intelligence, and la and middle childhood years.These studies are S Ertl and Schafer (1969) tested 317 males and 2 8, and did find a relation between vis haracteristics and IQ. Children were ce Scales for Children (WISC), the P d the Otis Quick Scoring om bipolar electrodes 6 4 site referred to the 400 flashes recorded over a 625 ms p ummation andzero crossing an component ident~cationre S were identified in this manner and were found to correlate I ~ t e l ~ ~ etest n c escores.In en these ERP amplitude and measu the last three EW peak components at recorded from the high p e r f o ~ i n gsubjects were generally more com-

71

a A

x

W

n ~ c a n relations t were found between WRP measures and intellec~

ults

lthough noting reliable relationsearly in lifebetween activity, failed to find continued relations ~ e ~ e e n adulthood (Shucard & Callaway, 1973). ~ t h e r sin , continued to findsuchrelation Busk, 1970; § h u c ~ & dH are summar~edin Table 7.2.

P"

c

of different sexes over a wide age and SES r a n ~ “to e

presentedwith three

tionnaires were

also

administered&ereach

their own and not

CO

n to assess

factors.

ubjects varied widely data from two electro

studies reviewed here found relations between intelliivity. The one measure that did not correlate with intelliand Callaway (1973 eir selection of very

IC

de sites and

the

UTC

of studies,building on the ment of a relation betweenIQ ctivity,have investi~atedwh ERPs could predict later skills. owe~er,the outcomes of these two attempts have been quite dBerent. In the earlier series of studies, althou such relations appear to occur been birthand later infancy(ISutle el, 1969), the co~elationsbetivity andIQ at later ages werenot consistentlyfound (Engel ond set of studies, which encierson & Engel, Berent approach V. Molfese, 1985, 1997; ock, 1986), although noting relations between birth measures and later performance at age l, continued to show relations between

aa

B

9

S

S

S

&

u

3

i ! *

a

B

m

-

c,

3Fh

N

N

d

s

8

m

s

%

4 c,

m

m

N

7 . ~ G U A G E D ~ L O P M EAND N T BRAIN ACTIVITY

earlybrain electrical measuresand later lae perfor~anceeven U e 5. These studies are outlined in Tab The earliest set of studies to investi~ate birth m e ~ u r e as s ~redictors of

lected &om these ida len~th the of interval i

relatio~ invol~n~

n e ~ o u sy§tems, § support thevi more mature motor systems at

fast reactors (those with

N1 latencies of 145 ms or less);

l a t ~ n c ia~t bi s

ENT

hic c h a ~ c t ~ r ~ .

S

into one of the

7 . ~ G U A G E D ~ L O P M EAND N TBRAINACTIVITY

scrimination. Thus,

electrode siteandthensubmitted to aprincipal components analysis ng a correlation m v a r i rotation. ~ ~ s eve^ re~ions cha~acterction procedure to classify 3 groups of childre reading subtest sco~es at 8 years-of-age: (l) a L n who e ~ o r ~ one e d standard devi-

ent l o n ~ i ~ d i nsample al of children. Two disc

GUAGE D ~ L O P ~ AND E ~ BT

otential

me^^

7.

t in speech perception: Electro-

oxese, D.L, (19$0a). Hemispheric s p e c i ~ ~ a t i ofor n temporal i ~ o ~ a t i o n : I ~ p l ~ c a t i o n s

L. (19$0b). "he phoneme and the e n ~ a m : E l e c t r o p h ~ i oevidence l o ~ c ~ for the e ,3 ? ~ - 3 7 ~ . i n ~ i a n in t stop cons on an^. rain and ~ n g u ~ g9,

e of auditory evokedresponses recorded fro

to words they did and

~ o x e s eD. , L., Gill, L. A.,Simos, P. G., & Tan,A. (1995). Impl~cations result in^ from the use of biolo~cal techniques to assess development. In L. F. DiLalla & S. M. C l a n ~ D o ~ i n ~ e r (Eds.), ~ s e s s ~ e and nt inte~ent~ across o ~ the Z ~ e s ~ a@p. n 1~~190). T. (1978). Speech perceptio nces. J o u ~ olf ~ x p ~ ~ e n

7. ~ G U A G E D ~ L O P M EAND N TBRAINACTIVITY

Molfese, D. L., Linn~lle,S. E.,Wetzel, W. F.,& Leicht, D.(1985).Elec~ophysiologicalcorrelates of handedness and speech perception contrasts. Neurop~chologia,23,77-86. Molfese, D. L., & Molfese, V.J.(1979a).Hemisphere and stimulus differencesas reflected in the cortical responsesof newborn infants to speech stimuli.Developmntal P~chology, 15, 505-5 11.

Molfese, D.,& Molfese, V, (1979b).Infantspeech perception Learned or innate? In H. Whitaker & H. Whitaker (Eds.), Advances in ~urolinguistics(Vol. 4, pp. 225-240).New York: Academic Press. Molfese, D., & Molfese, V. (1980).Cortical responses of preterm infants to phonetic and nonphonetic speech stimuli. Developm~talPsychology, 16, 574-581. Moflese, D.,& Molfese, V. (1985).E l e c ~ o p h ~ i o l o g indices i ~ a l of auditory discriminationin newborn infants: The bases for predicting later language development. Infant Behavior and Development, 8, 197-211. Molfese, D., & Molfese, V. (1986).P ~ ~ o p h y s i cindices al of early cognitive processes and their relationship to language. In J.E. O b m t & G. W.Hynd(Eds.), Child neuropsychoZogy: l*beory and research (Vol. 1, pp. 95-115). New York: Academic Press. Moifese, D., & Molfese, V. (1988).Right hemisphere responses from preschool children to temporal cues containedin speech and nonspeech materials. Electrophysiological correlates. Brain and Language, 33,245-259. Molfese, D, L., & Molfese, V.J. (1994).Short-term and long-term developmental outcomes. In G. Dawson & K. Fischer(Eds.), Human behavior and the developi~gbrain (pp. 493-517). New York: Guilford Press. of age usMolfese, D. L.,& Molfese,V.J.(1997).Discr~minationof language skills at five years ing event-related potentials recorded at birth. Developmntal Neuropsychology, 13(2), 135-156.

Molfese, D. L., & Schmidt,A. L. (1983).An auditory evoked potential study of consonant perception. Brain and Language, 18, 57-70. Moifese, D.,& Searock, K. (1986).The useof auditory evoked responses at one year of age to predict language skills at 3 years, Austral~anJournal of CommunicationDisorders, 14, 35-46,

Nelson, C., & Salapatek, P. (1986).Electrophysiologicalcorrelates of infantrecognition memory. Child Development, 57, 1483-1497. Pederson, D., Evans,B., Bento,S., Chance, G.,& Fox, A. (1987,April). Invulner~blehigh risk for Research in Child Development, Balpreterm infants, Foster presented at the Society timore. Rhodes, L. E., Dustman,R. E., Lb Beck, E. C. (1969).The visual evoked response: A comparison of bright and dull children. Journal of Elect~encephalographyand ClinicalNeurop h ~ ~ o l o g27, y , 364-372, Rockstroh, B., Elbert, T.,B~baumer,N., & Lutzenberger, W. (1982).Slow b r a i n ~ t ~ t i a l s and behavior. Baltimore: U r b ~ - S c h ~ e n b e r g . Ruchkin, D., Sutton,S., Munson, R.,& Macar, F, (1981).P300 and feedback provided by the absence of the stimuli. ~ ~ c h o p ~ s i o l o18, g y 271-282. , Segalowitz, S., & Cohen, H. (1989).Right hemisphere EEG sensitivity to speech. Brain a ~ d ~ a n g ~ a g3e7, , 220-231. Shucard, D. W., & Callaway, E.,111. (1973).Relationship between human intelligence and freP e r c e p t ~ l a n d ~ o tSkills, o r 36,147-151. quency analysisof cortical evoked responses. Shucard, D. W.,& Horn,J.L. (1972).Evoked cortical potentials and measurement of human abilities. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 78(1), 59-68, Siegel, L. (1982).Reproductive, perinatal and e n v ~ o ~ e n tvariables al as predictors of development of preterm ( C 1500 grams) and full terminfantsat 5 years, Seminars and Perinatology, G, 274-279.

M O ~ E S ENARTER, , MODGLIN Silva, P,,McGee, R., & Williams, S. (1984). A seven year follow-up studyof the cognitive development of children who experienced common perinatal problems. AUstraZian Pediutric J o u ~ Z , 20, 23-28. Simos, P. G., & Molfese, D. L. (1997). Electrophysi~lo~cal responses &om a temporal order continuum in the newborn infant, ~europsychoZogia,35, 89-98. Sostek, A., Smith, Y.,JSatz, K.,& Grant, E.(1987). Developmental outcomeof preterm infants with intraventricular hemorrhage atone and two years of age. Child ~ e v e l o p ~ e n58, t, 779-786. Terman, L. M., & Merrill, M. A. (1960). Stanford-Binet ScaZe, Form L. M. Cambridge, M Houghton Mifllin. Travis, L. (1931). Speech pathology. New York: Appleton-Century. Vogel, W., & Broverman, D.M. (1964). Relatio~hipbetween EEG and test in~elligence:A critical review. P~chologicalBulletin, 132-144. Weinberg, H.(1969). Correlation of frequency spectra of averaged visual evoked potentials with verbal intelligence. Science, 224, 813415. Witelson, S., & Swallow,J. A. (1987). Neurop~cholo~cal study of the developmentof spatial cognition. In J. Stiles-Davis, M. Kritchevsky, & U. Bellugi (Eds.), Spati~Zcognition: Brain &mes and develop~ent@p. 373-409). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Ct-iAPTER

E I G H T

Georgia State University Universit~School of Medicine

~ a ~ a WOE n n ~ Tufts U ~ i v ~ r s ~ t y

Naming refers to the ability to access and retrieve words in lexical storage (German, 1992, 1993). The act of finding a name or word is the “deceptively simple” end of a complexset of perceptual, linguistic, cognitive, and motoric operations ( C a r a m ~ a& Berndt, 1978; Gardner, 1974; LiederWolf, & Goodglass, 1983; Wolf, 1982, 1995;Wolf & Obre litativelydifferenttypes of naming disorders have been reults with anterior and posterior brain injuries. Patients wit focal damage to the anterior portion of the dominant hemisphere have many concrete and picturable nounsavailable for retri form accurately, butwith an increased latency,on na disruption appearsto bepart of a morege rbance, because other symptoms often include laborious articulation and a severe disruptionof productive syntax. Patients withposterior lesions in the dominant hemisphere ofken displayadeficit in the naming of concrete, picturable nouns, although the errors are frequently semantica~y or phonologica~y related to target (Goodglass, 1980). This impairment carries over into spontaneous speech, which is c h a r a c t e ~ e d by fluent articulationand intact syntax but reduction of content words. Although these patterns in adult naming performance are found in anterior versus posterior lesion comparisons, comparisonsat a more d~ferentiated level of lesion site have not yielded clear differences in naming perfomance (Goodglass, personal communication, 199 5 ) .

2

MORRIS ET AL.

In the past, children with focal cerebral lesions were not considered to present with patterns in speech and language disorders similar to adults chil(knneberg, 1967). Later studies, however, demonstrated that young dren with left brain lesions are impaired in various aspects of lexical, syn,and narrative discourse development ( ~Ekelman, ~ , ;Biddle, McCabe, & Bliss, 1996; hapm man et al., 1992; D tt, 1990; Kliessling, Denckla, adem, O’Gorman, & Watters, 1985), whereas children wi sions have relatively less impaired syntax, but are impai tic commu~cativeabilities” (e in communication) (Gross-T ir, 1995). Case studies of lexical ability in hemideco hn, 1975; Dennis & “hitaker, 1976) have also shown a reactic abilities in children with left hemidecortication, but Herences have been observed between childrenwith left idecortication on ~honemic orsemantic tasks. thtraumaticbraininjury(TBI) offer source of i~ormation.With these children traditional measures appear insufficientto detect their li within normal limits on mos alized tests of language (Bid Jordan, Cannon, &: Murdoch, 1992). However,whe personal n~rativeskills of TB1 children have been examined, S di~erencesin cohension ability, dysfluency, and rate have been U iddle et al., 1996; Chapman et al., 1992). Biddle andher co~eaguesconded that these narrative impairments appearmore the “result of problems with planning, producing, and monitoring discourse,” than to lanimpairments per se ddle et al., 1996, 459). The notion that ~isturbancesare re1 more to higher o er, executive processes agefunction is supported by other researchers’ work(e.g., Ylvisaker, 1993; Ylvisaker & Szekeres, 1989), by the fact that volves frontal lobe and subcorti~aldamage, and by the ~ e q u e n findi t that 9331 children evidence qualitatively different language ~ r o ~ l th es other childhoodpopulations with h o r n laagedisorders(Glosser ;McDonald, 1993). ation regardingthe specific lexical retrieval abilitiesof nonhemi~eco~icate children with brain lesions is mixe al. (1985) administeredthe Oldfield andWin dren, 28 of whom had left hemispherelesions and 25 of ~ h o m . ~ right ad hemisphere lesions. Results showed impaired naming in all children with left lesions (prenatal, early postnatal, and late postnatal) and in the children with early postnatal, right lesions when compared to control subjects. Aram, Ekelman, Rose, and Whitaker (1985) also demonstrated that

tn

G

T AL.

nces were

TABLE 8.3

Cortical Subcorticai Cerebeliar (N = 5) (N = 6)

~ a ~ a b i~e e a s u r e

F

Deficit

Semantic Latency Median ~

~

S

i Targets Median n g

Deficit

-S in^ Latency Median Median Targets Visual Median Latency Visual

Deficit Range Deficit Rafwe Deficit Range Deficit

_ _ _ _ _ ~

43

43 40-43

17% 1.3 1.0-2.9 67% 33.5 29-37 50% 3.4 2.2-3.9 67% 43 42-44 33% 1.0 0.5-1.3

0%

1.1 1.1-2.8 80% 34 22-37 40% 2.4 2.0-3.9 40% 43 41-45 60% 1.4 0.9-1.9 80%

50%

(N

= 6)

40 39-42 33% 1.2 .8-1.7 33% 27 23-34 33% 2.9 1.8-3.1 33% 42 42-45 33% 1.0 0.8-1.4 33%

Tu~rs N o n t ~ ~ r (N

= 17)

41 17% 1.2 .8-2.9 59% 31 22-37 41% 3.0 1.8-3.9 47% 43 41-45 41% 1.1 .5-1.9 53%

(N

= 19)

-

41.2-42.6

-

_ .

.8-1.4

33.5-35.6

-

-

2.5-3.4

43.7-44.6

___.

.G-l.O

"

Note: A subject was labeled Deficitif the score fell one ormore standard deviations below the national mean. *Scores on nontumor up represent age-based s t a n d ~ d ~ a ~ norms; o n subjects were not actually tested.

condition was responde to most rapidly and with the lowest error rate. i n c r e ~ e derror rate relative to the decreased latency period on the eed/accura~trade-off. er and ercent of total errors for

e two groups wererela both made more in-class er-

without tumors madeno the children with mors

normal children(410 ererrors (58%) of the children with tumorswere ,whereas, in contrast, normal children failed to % of the time. Both groups pro d r e s p o ~ efor s which no relation b and response could be discerned. Overall, the rtion (78%)of related responses tha ren without tumors made appro~matelyequal only and rhyme only errors; these children an r h ~ i n only g errors. Finally, although the proportion of hie~rchical “level” errors ,only the children with tumors made anyerrors (

rors).Over one he

In the visual condition, children in the tumor group made more semanrelated errors ( 5 ~ % )th comparison group (38% enerally indicatessome edge of the target (Wolf 1992). In contrast, the normal comparison childrenmade more visual erthan the children with tumors (30%). Only the children with de errors based on failure to respond (12%)‘ either s u ~ j e c t ced unrelated- or phonetically basederrors; the latter errors *

*

dian

vide propo~ionately more “no response” errors than did theother two tuA greater percentage of all the errors made across the ed on semantic associations(e.g.,cup/gla~s). Errors based rpretations were the next most highlyrepresented error. No errors across anyof the three tumor subgroupswere base lated responses or phonemic associations. est

SlC

en tumor and nontumor groups were compared on this test (Table d@ered in their use of responses containing incorrect basicor subordinate labels, including semantic paraphasias and incomplete descriptio~s.That is, the children with tumors producedmore “other”type responses(e.g., circumlocuto~responses,“pluginkind of knife” for “electric knife”) than did the normal comparison group (t = 2.55; p = c.05). These “other” responses were correlated with children’s subordinatelevel namiities (r = .50,p

Developmental Variations in Learning: Applications to Social, Executive Function, Language, and Reading Skills (Lea's Communication Series)

Handbook of Communication and Social Interaction Skills (Routledge Communication Series)

Language Form and Language Function (Language, Speech, and Communication)

Online Communication in Language Learning and Teaching

Communication and Interpersonal Skills in Social Work (Transforming Social Work)

Teaching and Learning Communication, Language and Literacy

Form and Function in Developmental Evolution

Learning to Teach Reading

Communication Skills

Handbook of Language and Social Interaction (Routledge Communication Series)

Communication Skills

Elements of Language Developmental Language Skills, First Course

English Language Communication Skills, Revised Edition

From language to communication

Language Learning and Teaching as Social Interaction

Communication Skills (Career Skills Library)

Language Development: Circle Time Sessions to Improve Communication Skills (Spirals)

Learning to Use Statistical Skills in Psychology

Leas Hexenladen

Communication Skills (Career Skills Library)

Brain, Behavior, and Learning in Language and Reading Disorders (Challenges in Language and Literacy)

Promoting Executive Function in the Classroom

Learning and Writing in Counselling (Professional Skills for Counsellors series)

Function Spaces and Applications

Methodology Of Frontal And Executive Function

Language and Communication

Communication, Language and Literacy

Foreign Language Learning and Use: Interaction in Informal Social Networks

Education, Policy and Social Justice: Learning and Skills

Studies in Language and Social Interaction: In Honor of Robert Hopper (Routledge Communication Series)

Language and Power (Language in Social Life)

Developmental Variations in Learning: Applications to Social, Executive Function, Language, and Reading Skills (Lea's Communication Series)

Handbook of Communication and Social Interaction Skills (Routledge Communication Series)

Language Form and Language Function (Language, Speech, and Communication)

Online Communication in Language Learning and Teaching

Communication and Interpersonal Skills in Social Work (Transforming Social Work)

Teaching and Learning Communication, Language and Literacy

Form and Function in Developmental Evolution

Learning to Teach Reading

Communication Skills

Handbook of Language and Social Interaction (Routledge Communication Series)

Communication Skills

Elements of Language Developmental Language Skills, First Course

English Language Communication Skills, Revised Edition

From language to communication

Language Learning and Teaching as Social Interaction

Communication Skills (Career Skills Library)

Language Development: Circle Time Sessions to Improve Communication Skills (Spirals)

Learning to Use Statistical Skills in Psychology

Leas Hexenladen

Communication Skills (Career Skills Library)

Brain, Behavior, and Learning in Language and Reading Disorders (Challenges in Language and Literacy)

Promoting Executive Function in the Classroom

Learning and Writing in Counselling (Professional Skills for Counsellors series)

Function Spaces and Applications

Methodology Of Frontal And Executive Function

Language and Communication

Communication, Language and Literacy

Foreign Language Learning and Use: Interaction in Informal Social Networks

Education, Policy and Social Justice: Learning and Skills

Studies in Language and Social Interaction: In Honor of Robert Hopper (Routledge Communication Series)

Language and Power (Language in Social Life)

Recommend Documents