Age-related differences in inhibitory control in the early school years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The transition to school is associated with a greater requirement to inhibit irrelevant or inappropriate thought and behavior in order to concentrate on effective learning and to interact successfully with peers. Current knowledge of inhibitory control development in the early school years is limited due to a lack of normative data from age-appropriate, sensitive measures. In this study, three pictorial versions of the Stroop task were administered to investigate inhibitory control development in early school-aged children. Age-related trajectories of inhibition and effects of gender were examined in 80 children (42 boys) aged 5 to 8 years. All children were assessed with the Cognitive Assessment System Expressive Attention subtest (Big-Small Stroop), Fruit Stroop, and Boy-Girl Stroop. The Big-Small Stroop revealed substantial age-related improvement in inhibition from 5 to 7 years with a levelling of performance at 8 years of age, while the Fruit Stroop and Boy-Girl Stroop demonstrated clear but nonsignificant age trends. In particular, older children committed fewer errors and corrected their errors more frequently than younger children. Performance on all Stroop tasks correlated significantly, providing evidence that they tap similar cognitive abilities. Some gender differences were found. This study indicates that inhibitory skills develop rapidly in the early school years and suggests that error awareness may be a useful indicator of the development of cognitive inhibition for this age group.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".