The Importance and Training of Executive Functions among Children and Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Executive function is a set of higher-order cognitive processes in which people control their thoughts and behaviors to accomplish goals. This paper explores whether executive functions are similar important for children and children with autism spectrum disorder, and whether existing training methods are efficient. Executive function is important for children because they can use the function to improve their academic and social performance. When children lack executive functions, they are vulnerable to mental disorders including the autism spectrum disorder. To reduce the risk of mental disorders, children should be provided with executive function training, which usually includes behavioral, movement-based and mindfulness training methods. Behavioral training can effectively help children with attention deficiency. Movement-based training is supposed to strengthen children’s muscles, in particular the brain development, and enhance children’s inhibitory control and attention. Mindfulness training aims at removing judgmental experiences at a given moment in terms of feelings, thoughts, and behaviors. It can reduce stress and anxiety, as well as improve children’s cognitive control. Executive functions are more rampant among preschool children. Children with autism spectrum disorder need executive function training as it can improve their working memory, cognitive flexibility and response inhibition. However, executive function training can be highly individualized and require qualified trainers, and traditional executive function training methods may lack effectiveness, which requires future research to continue to develop and focus on advanced technologies to improve the effectiveness of executive function training. This paper can provide some reference for follow-up research.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".