Insights from a Career at the Border of Developmental Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Much has changed since I started my PhD research in 1980. Neither the field of developmental cognitive neuroscience nor the term “executive functions” existed then. In some ways this piece is backward-looking, such as discussing how our research introduced the importance of the executive function of inhibitory control for cognitive development and that infants and young children are much smarter than we thought. The way our field has queried infants and young children often prevented us from seeing their competencies. That is still too true in studying children from different backgrounds. In other ways, this piece is forward-looking, such as when discussing evidence that the conceptualization of working memory as an executive function and as the key function of dorsolateral prefrontal cortex has been too narrow. It is not just separation in time that must be bridged (traditionally the province of working memory) but also separations in space, and the latter are just as important for cognitive development and just as dependent on the executive function brain network, including dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. It is also forward-looking in discussing the critical importance of motor, social, and emotional development for cognitive development and executive functions, as well as bidirectional relations among these different facets of development. Study of the different aspects of human development is still far too siloed, as are the different fields of science. Examples are provided of how the fields of neuroscience (including neurochemistry and molecular genetics) and child development inform and complement one another. Implications for educators, parents, and researchers are interwoven throughout.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".