Structural brain basis of latent factors of executive functions in childhood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Executive functions can be classified into processes of inhibition, working memory and shifting, which together support flexible and goal-directed behaviour and are crucial for both current and later-life outcomes. A large body of literature has identified distinct brain regions critical to performing each of these functions. These findings are however predicated on a piecemeal and single-task approach. It is therefore unclear to what extent these associations reflect task-specific features or actual constructs of executive functions. Here, in a sample of 141 children aged 6-13 years, we administered a battery of 9 executive function tasks, derived latent factors of inhibition, working memory, and shifting and examined their associations with markers of brain structure (whole-brain cortical thickness). We identified associations between working memory and cortical thickness of right superior frontal and left medial temporal lobe as well as associations between shifting and cortical thickness in bilateral frontal and occipital lobes and left medial and anterior temporal lobes. While working memory and shifting shared a cortical substrate in right superior frontal cortex as well as left middle and inferior temporal regions no significant brain clusters were associated with inhibition. We discuss these findings in relation to theories of executive functions and their development.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".