FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W807690634> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W807690634 abstract "Young children are notorious for being inadequate at stopping their automatic actions during tasks that require inhibition (Munakata et al, 2011). The mechanism by which we are able to inhibit those automatic actions is regulated by cognitive control, which is a set of processes that allow us to maintain goal-relevant behavior over the course of a given task. Previous research has established that there is a marked transition during childhood in the form of cognitive control that is deployed to aid during a given task (Chatham, Frank, & Munakata 2009). Younger children are more in-the-moment thinkers while older children are able to anticipate a prompt and can therefore prepare an answer. One particular study looking children’s cognitive control was constructed to assess which type of rule reminder during a task helped younger children to perform successfully throughout a task (Barker & Munakata, in prep). This study found that cue-highlighting reminders throughout the task helped younger children with their performance. The present study seeks to investigate which category of reminder during a boxsearch task is most helpful to 3-4.5 year olds in inhibiting their automatic reactions, which is an extension of the Barker & Munakata task. Our findings indicate that children did worse in go-trial tasks than expected across all conditions. In the no-go trial tasks, which are designed to test inhibitory control, in contrast to our hypothesis, children performed worse in the reactive reminder condition than the proactive reminder condition. These results create interesting questions that can lead us to further research. IMPROVING CHILDREN’S INHIBITORY CONTROL 3 Improving Children’s Inhibitory Control: Effects of Prior Task Instructions Versus in the Moment Reminders Children are notoriously inadequate at stopping themselves from carrying out impulsive, automatic actions. For example, when a child sees their mom pull a fresh batch of cookies right out of the oven, their impulsive reaction is to reach right out to grab a cookie. However, the child must keep in mind that the cookie is still very hot and they should wait for it to cool before they can have their cookie (Munakata & Yerys, 2001). To inhibit automatic actions, children rely on cognitive control, a set of mental processes that aid in planning actions and coordinating behaviors (Barber & Carter, 2005). These behaviors include inhibitory control, mental set shifting, and the maintenance and updating of goal-relevant information (also known as executive functions (Blair & Razza 2007; Diamond 2012). Therefore, cognitive control is necessary for remembering that the cookie is too hot, creating the goal of not reaching out for it until it is cool, and helping to inhibit the impulse to grab it anyway. Cognitive control develops gradually across childhood (Chatham, Frank, & Munakata 2009). For example, in the day-night Stroop test, a standard measure of inhibitory control, participants are shown either a card with a sun or a card with a moon and stars, and are instructed to respond with the word “night” when the daytime image is presented, and “day” when the nighttime image is presented. Young children (3 to 4-year-olds) struggle to inhibit their natural tendency to say IMPROVING CHILDREN’S INHIBITORY CONTROL 4 the word that corresponds with what they see on the card (i.e., “day” for the sun card and “night” for the moon card), in order to say the opposite response, which is appropriate given the task instructions (Gerstadt, Hong, Diamond 1994). Performance on day-night Stroop and other inhibitory control tasks improves with age (Gerstadt, Hong, Diamond 1994; Carver, Livesey, & Charles 2001). One explanation for why young children struggle to inhibit automatic actions is that they employ cognitive control in a qualitatively different way than adults. Young children engage cognitive control reactively, by responding to stimuli in-themoment, as they appear in the environment (Chatham, Frank, & Munakata 2009; Chatham, Snyder, & Munakata 2013). By contrast, older children typically exhibit a more proactive form of cognitive control, in which they anticipate that a prompt will occur, and prepare an appropriate response prior to the prompt. Across childhood, children transition from a predominantly reactive form of control to a predominantly proactive form of control. By age 8, children begin to recruit more adult-like, proactive response patterns in tasks where responses can be planned (Chatham, Frank, Munakata 2009; Chatham, Snyder, & Munakata 2013). Recent evidence suggests that young children’s reactive control can be improved when they are given reminders in the moment before they need to respond. In a recent study on inhibitory control in 3-4-year-olds (Barker & Munakata, under revision), children’s inhibitory control was tested using a go/no-go task in which participants had to respond when presented with one cue (by opening a box to find stickers) and withhold the tendency to respond when presented with a different cue (leaving the box closed) (Figure 1). During this task, children have a IMPROVING CHILDREN’S INHIBITORY CONTROL 5 strong tendency to want to reach automatically to open the boxes to find stickers. No-go trials serve as a measure of inhibitory control because children must maintain task rules to inhibit this prepotent response and stop themselves from reaching when given no-go cues. The study tested whether children’s inhibitory control was more likely to be improved by delays, consistent with a passive dissipation account (in which a prepotent response reaches a “response threshold” before a correct response does), or reminders, consistent with a reactive control account (an in-the-moment reminder of the target cues). Performance was compared across four conditions: no delay + cue reminder, delay + cue reminder, no delay + no cue reminder, and delay + no cue reminder. In the Delay conditions, the experimenter revealed the box and after waited ~2 seconds, placed the cue on top of the box. In the No Delay conditions, the box and the cue were revealed simultaneously by the experimenter. In Reminder conditions, children heard an additional verbal reminder of the instructions and saw the experimenter point to or place the cue on the box at the beginning of the trial. In No Reminder conditions, children received standard instructions, and did not see the experimenter point to Figure 1: Physical apparatus used in go/no-go task. Participant was told to open the box with the blue square to find a sticker, and to leave boxes with the red triangle closed (because they did not contain stickers). IMPROVING CHILDREN’S INHIBITORY CONTROL 6 or place the cue. Reminders improved participants’ accuracy on no-go trials regardless of whether or not delays were imposed by the experimenter, suggesting that task reminders, rather than delays, improve children’s inhibitory control. Although the study revealed that task reminders can be used to improve young children’s inhibitory control, it is not clear whether children’s performance was improved in Reminders conditions because of additional instructions provided at the beginning of the task, or because of physical reminders provided during each trial. This is a crucial differentiation to make because additional instructions at the outset of a task are considered to be a proactive reminder while the physical reminders during each trial are considered to be a reactive reminder. Therefore, it is beneficial to tease these conditions apart in order to see if, in fact, a reactive reminder is more beneficial for a reactive child. In our current study, we sought to tease apart the effects of additional reminders and cue highlighting on young children’s (ages 3 to 4.5 years) performance in a computerized version of the box search no-go task. We predicted that in-the-moment cue highlighting would be more beneficial to young children’s inhibitory control than additional instructions at the outset of the task, since children in this age range should be more likely to rely on reactive, in-the-moment" @default.
• W807690634 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W807690634 creator A5065450548 @default.
• W807690634 date "2015-01-01" @default.
• W807690634 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W807690634 title "Improving Children's Inhibitory Control: Effects of Prior Task Instructions versus in-the-Moment Reminders" @default.
• W807690634 cites W1532186120 @default.
• W807690634 cites W2005938104 @default.
• W807690634 cites W2020420828 @default.
• W807690634 cites W2107176824 @default.
• W807690634 cites W2120259364 @default.
• W807690634 cites W2121154230 @default.
• W807690634 cites W2122616458 @default.
• W807690634 cites W2134391180 @default.
• W807690634 cites W2144875997 @default.
• W807690634 cites W2149308981 @default.
• W807690634 cites W2153971097 @default.
• W807690634 cites W2160148629 @default.
• W807690634 hasPublicationYear "2015" @default.
• W807690634 type Work @default.
• W807690634 sameAs 807690634 @default.
• W807690634 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W807690634 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W807690634 hasAuthorship W807690634A5065450548 @default.
• W807690634 hasConcept C121332964 @default.
• W807690634 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
• W807690634 hasConcept C154945302 @default.
• W807690634 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W807690634 hasConcept C169760540 @default.
• W807690634 hasConcept C169900460 @default.
• W807690634 hasConcept C179254644 @default.
• W807690634 hasConcept C201995342 @default.
• W807690634 hasConcept C2775924081 @default.
• W807690634 hasConcept C2778796910 @default.
• W807690634 hasConcept C2780451532 @default.
• W807690634 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W807690634 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W807690634 hasConcept C74650414 @default.
• W807690634 hasConceptScore W807690634C121332964 @default.
• W807690634 hasConceptScore W807690634C127413603 @default.
• W807690634 hasConceptScore W807690634C154945302 @default.
• W807690634 hasConceptScore W807690634C15744967 @default.
• W807690634 hasConceptScore W807690634C169760540 @default.
• W807690634 hasConceptScore W807690634C169900460 @default.
• W807690634 hasConceptScore W807690634C179254644 @default.
• W807690634 hasConceptScore W807690634C201995342 @default.
• W807690634 hasConceptScore W807690634C2775924081 @default.
• W807690634 hasConceptScore W807690634C2778796910 @default.
• W807690634 hasConceptScore W807690634C2780451532 @default.
• W807690634 hasConceptScore W807690634C41008148 @default.
• W807690634 hasConceptScore W807690634C71924100 @default.
• W807690634 hasConceptScore W807690634C74650414 @default.
• W807690634 hasLocation W8076906341 @default.
• W807690634 hasOpenAccess W807690634 @default.
• W807690634 hasPrimaryLocation W8076906341 @default.
• W807690634 hasRelatedWork W2018178169 @default.
• W807690634 hasRelatedWork W2057392261 @default.
• W807690634 hasRelatedWork W2065326643 @default.
• W807690634 hasRelatedWork W2070221442 @default.
• W807690634 hasRelatedWork W2120694799 @default.
• W807690634 hasRelatedWork W2121888898 @default.
• W807690634 hasRelatedWork W2349801562 @default.
• W807690634 hasRelatedWork W2514343140 @default.
• W807690634 hasRelatedWork W2723580571 @default.
• W807690634 hasRelatedWork W2790698350 @default.
• W807690634 hasRelatedWork W2802268361 @default.
• W807690634 hasRelatedWork W2809779568 @default.
• W807690634 hasRelatedWork W2965195072 @default.
• W807690634 hasRelatedWork W2966560739 @default.
• W807690634 hasRelatedWork W2992373319 @default.
• W807690634 hasRelatedWork W2997082012 @default.
• W807690634 hasRelatedWork W3126226053 @default.
• W807690634 hasRelatedWork W3201634931 @default.
• W807690634 hasRelatedWork W3203437324 @default.
• W807690634 hasRelatedWork W745212730 @default.
• W807690634 isParatext "false" @default.
• W807690634 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W807690634 magId "807690634" @default.
• W807690634 workType "article" @default.