Talk:Executive functions

Nominate for Good Article

Add Rebecca Silton (talk) 03:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC)rsilton

Feedback on Page as of 11/17/11

There has been a flurry of activity on this page. Awesome job, editors! Special shout-out to VF, AZ, and MR. The page is definitely taking shape!

Areas of Strength:

• I really like some of the examples used to illustrate executive functions (i.e., refusing cake when on a diet, waiting for a friend at the train station, etc.)
• The quote used for the Miller and Cohen model is helpful.
• Added section on bilingualism is cool - great way to bring in culturally relevant research!
• Very comprehensive list of models that are explained well. I esp. like language that spells it out "First... Second... Third... Last..."
• Added sections on development of EF throughout the lifespan presents clear and important content that will be relevant to many readers.

Areas in Need of Improvement:

• In general, some of the language can get pretty academic/hifalutin and may not be suitable for all readers.

Examples: --> Top-Down Inhibitory Control section: "facilitatory" and "amplificatory"

--> Hypothesized Role section, 3rd paragraph: "prepotent responses"

• Citations should go after punctuation, not before.
• In general, some sentences seem overly long or have a "run-on" feel. I think it might be easier to read if a more concise writing style is used. There were also a few grammar issues/sentences that were a bit confusing to a lay reader (see italics below).

Examples: --> "When studying executive functions, a developmental framework is helpful because these abilities mature at different rates over time, with some peaking in late childhood or adolescence while others progressing until early adulthood."

--> "Yet, it is during adolescence when the different brain systems become better integrated, so youth implement executive functions, such as inhibitory control, more efficiently and effectively, improving throughout this time period."

--> "The advent of bloodflow-based neuroimaging techniques such as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and positron emission tomography (PET) has more recently permitted the demonstration that neural activity in a number of sensory regions, including color-, motion-, and face-responsive regions of visual cortex, is enhanced when subjects are directed to attend to that dimension of a stimulus, suggestive of gain control in sensory neocortex."

• Connectivity... section: What is the "biasing model?" It is not described in the models listed above.
• Components of EF section: Is there any content that is supposed to go there?
• Adding more within-Wikipedia links to some subsections may be helpful (i.e., Development sections, bilinugal section, SAS Model (for example, schema. BTW - plural of schema should be schemata or schemas)).

Just to Consider...

• "More Recent Contributions" heading: this gives the connotation that other sections are old or out-dated. It might be nice to re-title this "Future Directions" or "Promising new research" or something.
• I thought the breadth of content here is great. It might be hepful to add a section on assessments of EF (ex.: the BRIEF, DKEFS, CAS, etc.)
• Intro, 1st paragraph: Why are several individuals (Botvinick, Verguts, etc.) cited like a research paper? Maybe it would be better to cite them using a superscript? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cholbein (talk • contribs) 21:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

cognitive control

I suggest to change the title of this article to 'cognitive control' and redirect 'executive functions' to it rather than the other way around. In the recent high-impact scientific literature the term 'executive functions' seems to have fallen out of favor.146.50.209.116 (talk) 01:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't agree with this. The term "cognitive control" is very nebulous, whereas at least scientists generally understand what "executive function" is supposed to mean. Also, I believe the term is still pretty widely used. (I myself am not fond of it, but that's another story...) In any case, this article as written really doesn't capture the literature very well. Looie496 (talk) 17:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I also disagree. "Executive functions" is the more widely used term, both in Google and in leading neuroscience textbooks,such as Kolb & Whishaw, Fundamentals of Human Neuropsychology (2008). Furthermore, the expression "Executive functions" is a very broad one, whereas the expression "cognitive control" also can be used in a very specific way: for example the cognitive control of movement. --Lova Falk (talk) 08:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Where's everything else

The Basal Ganglia are missing138.246.7.136 (talk) 11:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Please, feel free to be bold and add them! --Lova Falk (talk) 16:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Miller and Cohen language

The proper format is "Earl Miller, Ph.D."

"Dr. Earl Miller" is incorrect. So is "Dr. Earl Miller, Ph.D."

Usually, in academic publications, supported by citations, you don't mention the degree, on the assumption that the person who did the research is a professor and has an appropriate degree. So, "Earl Miller," or "Earl Miller of University of Whatever" is acceptable.

Sorry, I don't know if wikipedia has exact standards for this sort of thing. I don't have an account, so I'm not going to alter the article.69.225.5.72 (talk) 06:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

You don't need an account to edit the great majority of articles, including this one. But I went ahead and made the change anyway. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 21:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Executive Dysfunction

I'm somewhat disappointed at the quality and organization of this article. Executive Functions is an important topic that reaches into a huge range of areas in psychology. In particular, I take issue with the redirection of "executive dysfunction" to this article. There is only a single mention of it within the article body (as well as a mention of Dysexecutive Syndrom). I propose a separate section for Executive Dysfunction focusing more on psychopathology and issues relating to it. There is currently an article for "Dysexecutive Syndrome," and I think that article could be merged into a broader Executive Dysfunction article. I realize this is a drastic change, but I am currently working with a group of students to create such an article and we are quite prepared to make a well-organized and comprehensive contribution. Such an article would include discussion of executive dysfunction from neuropsychological, medical, socio-cultural and educational perspectives (among others).

We are beginning the project today, so please respond ASAP. Thank you! --FractalUniverse187 16:04, 05 February 2009 (UTC)

As long as you follow the literature, I think this is an excellent plan. One point that wasn't completely clear: if multiple people are going to work on the article, each one should have a separate account. Looie496 (talk) 02:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response! It's part of an assignment for a university psychology course, so we'll work as a group and then post the results of our collaboration using the account provided by the course instructor. --FractalUniverse187 10:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Field independance?

I can't find any info on field independance/non independance..would be useful if someone knows about this, to have an article on it.. heres a link I found with some info

http://www.usd.edu/~ssanto/field.html

dankelly07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.240.229.68 (talk) 10:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I think field-dependence vs. independence has gone dormant as a research topic. The "rod and frame" apparatus was used to assess it, and also a less cumbersome procedure called the embedded figures test.

Field-dependence was once believed to reflect a robust fundamental personality trait or cognitive style. As I recall, it turned out to be moderately correlated with a variety of other traits. With this sort of topic, the reasons research interest gradually dries up are often never published. You have to talk with an "insider," i.e., someone who was in the trenches, doing the research, to find out. And, sometimes, these topics simply "go out of fashion," typically when their advocates die or retire.

Field dependence is mentioned in the Wikipedia article on "cognitive style." I don't think it's particularly relevant to the topic of the present article. 69.225.5.72 (talk) 06:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Definition

How can a system be also known as functions? Looks like apples and oranges to me. --CopperKettle 12:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

"Executive functions" are the functions that are carried out by the executive system. The executive system is the system that carries out executive functions. I agree that the wording of the article is very awkward, but I don't think it's a question of apples and oranges. Looie496 (talk) 16:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that. I pointed at the awkwardness. Just now did a stub at Russian Wiki, and it was hard to come up with definition there (0: --CopperKettle 16:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

EF and Fluid Intelligence

I think there should be something describing how EF is related to fluid intelligence, and how studies suggest EF is seperable from IQ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.228.249 (talk) 00:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Please, if you have good references, be bold and write a section on this! Lova Falk talk 10:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Ambiguous sentence?

"The executive system is thought to be heavily involved in handling novel situations outside the domain of some of our 'automatic' psychological processes that could be explained by the reproduction of learned schemas or set behaviors."

Is it clear whether "that" refers to the executive system or the 'automatic' psychological processes?

--83.250.74.141 (talk) 13:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I read "that" as referring to the domain mediated by automatic processes. The sentence maybe should read ... novel situations, those outside ... and then c/that could be explained/explainable/ htom (talk) 17:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

References - how do I edit them?

I tried to edit the references to add the title of the first one, since it only has the journal title, but all I get is a tag to ReferenceList - how do I edit the actual references? BTW the title in question was "Assessment of executive functions: Review of instruments and identification of critical issues" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.7.28.49 (talk) 21:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The actual content of the reference appears in the text source at the spot where you see the number [1]. You will probably be able to figure out how it works -- you need to add a "title=..." field. Let me know if you continue to have difficulties. Looie496 (talk) 22:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, that was my fault, I didn't realise that I omitted the article title. I'm glad someone picked it up though. Thankyou observant IP editor!! The title has now been inserted. MitchMcM (talk) 00:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Very Complete Article...

This is a very full, complete, organized article...great job to all those who collaborated on it to complete it! Kater144 (talk) 03:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Great update, but one suggestion!

Great work guys! I wanted to add that I would love to see some images on this page. Featured articles that are really fun to read have great visuals. A giant wall full of black and white text can sometimes make things a bit hard/slow to read. Especially with neuroanatomy and experimental neuroimaging data, I think visuals would add a bit more awesomeness!

BrianMSweis (talk) 03:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Executive functions/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ItsZippy (talk · contribs) 17:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC) Hi, I will review this article. I shall post my comments shortly; additional comments from other users are welcomed. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Generally good prose throughout. There are occasions of editorialising - "such as a tasty piece of chocolate cake" - which could be cleaned up. This isn't enough to fail the nomination, though.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Everything is fine except for the lead. The lead should serve as a summary of the article and be able to stand-alone as a shorter version. The lead needs considerable expansion; I'd suggest substantial coverage on each top level heading in the article.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Very well sourced.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Very well cited.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Not a problem.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Broad in coverage and stays on topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	See above.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Adheres to NPOV very well.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No problems here.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	The image used is is tagged appropriately.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The image used is fine, enough to pass GA, though perhaps more images could be included.
	7. Overall assessment.	Overall, the article is very good; there are a few minor problems, though these are not enough to fail the GA nomination. My only concern is that the lead section is way too short; it should serve as a shorter summary of the whole article, rather than serve as an introduction. If you manage to improve the lead, I'll pass this (if it looks like it'll take a little while, then I'll fail it to allow you enough time). As the article has not been substantially edited since the review, I'm failing it to give it more time.

ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

• also, PubMed and doi or other identifiers should be given for journal articles per WP:MEDRS so sources can be accessed by readers. Also ISBN for books. Also, some of the references seem out of date (no more thatn 5-10 years old, per WP:MEDRS) MathewTownsend (talk) 02:48, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

As the article has not been substantially edited since the review, I'm failing it to give it more time. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 10:17, 27 December 2011 (UTC)