Inhibitory control in typically developing preschoolers: Relations among temperament, respiratory sinus arrhythmia, and behavior at age 4
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although inhibitory control (IC) is associated with children's positive adjustment, we know relatively little about factors underlying its development. We examined whether baseline and on-task respiratory sinus arrhythmia [(RSA); a physiological measure of self-regulation] and private speech (a behavioral measure of self-regulation) interacted to confer differences on directly observed IC in 52 typically developing 4-year olds. We found that baseline RSA moderated the association between private speech and IC, such that private speech positively predicted IC in children with relatively higher baseline RSA, but was unrelated to IC in children with relatively lower RSA. We also found that children with a concordant physiological-behavioral pattern (i.e., high RSA and high private speech; low RSA and low private speech) had higher IC, higher effortful control, and lower negative emotionality than those with a discordant physiological-behavioral pattern (i.e., high RSA and low private speech; low RSA and high private speech). Individual differences in physiological and behavioral self-regulation indices may represent distinct regulation pathways that interact to confer differences in IC during the preschool years.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".