Executive Function (EF)

Question 1

What is Executive Function (EF)?

Answer 1

Refers to a set of higher-order cognitive abilities such as planning, inhibition, working memory, mental flexibility, self-monitoring and set-shifting (Hill, 2004).

Question 2

How is EF relevant to understanding autism?

Answer 2

EF explains non-social features of autism, such as:
* Insistence on sameness
* Rigidity in routine
* Narrow range of interests.

Question 3

What non-social traits of autism may be linked to EF deficits?

Answer 3

Traits like insistence on sameness, rigid routines, and limited interests.

Question 4

What is the Tower of Hanoi task?

Answer 4

It is a planning task where participants must move disks between pegs following specific rules, used to measure problem-solving and planning ability.

Question 5

Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery

Answer 5

It’s a computerized tool used to assess various cognitive functions, including executive functioning.

Question 6

Stockings of Cambridge

Answer 6

It is a planning task from the CANTAB battery, similar to the Tower of London, used to evaluate executive planning ability.

Question 7

What was the main finding of Ozonoff et al. (1991)?

Answer 7

High-functioning individuals with autism showed significant deficits in executive function, theory of mind, and emotion perception.

Question 8

What tasks were used by Ozonoff et al. (1991) to assess executive function?

Answer 8

They used classic neuropsychological tasks such as the Tower of Hanoi and the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST).

Question 9

Did Ozonoff et al. (1991) attribute these deficits to general intellectual disability?

Answer 9

No, the deficits were found to be specific to autism, not due to general intellectual disability.

Question 10

What link did Ozonoff et al. (1991) help establish?

Answer 10

A link between executive dysfunction and the core features of autism.

Question 11

How did Ozonoff et al. (2004) build on the earlier study?

Answer 11

They used computerised measures (CANTAB) to assess executive function in a larger and more diverse sample.

Question 12

What planning task was used in Ozonoff et al. (2004)?

Answer 12

The Stockings of Cambridge (SOC) task.

Question 13

What did Ozonoff et al. (2004) find about IQ and executive function in autism?

Answer 13

Individuals with higher IQs showed less impairment in planning tasks, suggesting that impairment severity may depend on intellectual level.

Question 14

What did Ozonoff et al. (2004) conclude about task selection and participant characteristics?

Answer 14

Ozonoff et al. (2004) concluded that the detection of EF deficits in autism depends on two key factors:

1. Participant Characteristics – especially IQ level, as individuals with higher IQs may show fewer EF impairments.

2. Task Selection – different EF tasks vary in sensitivity; more complex or demanding tasks (e.g., computerised planning tasks) are more likely to reveal deficits.

These findings emphasize the need to carefully choose tasks and consider individual differences when assessing EF in autism.

Question 15

What is the overall conclusion from both studies?

Answer 15

Executive function deficits, especially in planning, are core features of autism, though their severity can vary with IQ and task type Ozonoff et al., 1991, 2004).

Question 16

What cognitive difficulty did Ozonoff et al. (1991) identify in high-functioning individuals with autism?

Answer 16

They identified significant mental inflexibility.

Question 17

How was mental inflexibility measured in Ozonoff et al. (1991)?

Answer 17

Through poor performance on set-shifting tasks like the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST).

Question 18

What specific challenge did participants with autism face in the WCST?

Answer 18

They had difficulty adapting to new rules and shifting cognitive strategies.

Question 19

Did Ozonoff et al. (1991) find that mental inflexibility was related to general intellectual disability?

Answer 19

No, they found it was specific to autism and not due to general intellectual disability.

Question 20

What is the purpose of the Windows Task?

Answer 20

Assess the ability to inhibit a prepotent response and engage in strategic deception, focusing on executive function in individuals with autism.

Question 21

Who developed the Windows Task?

Answer 21

Russell et al. (1991)

Question 22

What is the setup of the Windows Task?

Answer 22

Two boxes are presented, each with a transparent window showing which box contains a desirable reward (e.g., chocolate), but the child must select the empty box to receive the reward.

Question 23

What is the rule in the Windows Task?

Answer 23

The child is told they will only receive the reward if they point to the empty box, not the one with the visible treat. If they point to the box with the treat, the experimenter keeps the reward.

Question 24

What executive function does the Windows Task assess?

Answer 24

It primarily assesses inhibition (the ability to suppress a dominant response) and strategic thinking (the ability to choose the correct box).

Question 25

How do children with autism perform on the Windows Task?

Answer 25

Children with autism often struggle with inhibition and have difficulty resisting the urge to point to the box with the visible treat, demonstrating impairments in inhibitory control and strategic flexibility.

Question 26

What is the significance of perseverative behaviour observed in children with autism during the task?

Answer 26

Perseverative behaviour, where children continue making the same incorrect response despite negative feedback, highlights inflexibility and difficulty in adjusting strategies, reflecting executive dysfunction.

Question 27

How do the findings from the Windows Task support the theory of executive dysfunction in autism?

Answer 27

The task demonstrates a specific deficit in inhibiting dominant responses and adjusting strategies, supporting the hypothesis that children with autism have executive function difficulties, particularly in response inhibition and cognitive flexibility.

Question 28

Why is the Windows Task considered a sensitive measure of executive dysfunction in autism?

Answer 28

The Windows Task is sensitive because it requires children to override a prepotent response based on arbitrary rules, highlighting a core deficit in executive control that is particularly evident in autism.

Question 29

How do the findings of the Windows Task relate to other inhibition tasks?

Answer 29

Unlike other inhibition tasks, the Windows Task shows more significant impairment in children with autism, suggesting that the nature of the rule (arbitrary vs. meaningful) is crucial in detecting executive dysfunction.

Question 30

What was the main focus of the Goldberg et al. (2005) study?

Answer 30

The study examined the executive functions of children with high-functioning autism (HFA), ADHD, and neurotypical controls, specifically assessing inhibition, planning, set-shifting, and working memory.

Question 31

What tasks were used to assess executive functions in the study?

Answer 31

Stroop Colour and Word Test to assess response inhibition, and tasks from the Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery (CANTAB) to assess problem-solving, set-shifting, and spatial working memory.

Question 32

Were there significant group differences in response inhibition, planning, or set-shifting?

Answer 32

No, there were no significant differences between the HFA, ADHD, and control groups on the tasks assessing response inhibition, planning, or set-shifting, indicating that these executive functions were relatively intact across groups.

Question 33

Which executive function showed significant impairments in children with HFA and ADHD

Answer 33

The study found significant impairments in spatial working memory (SWM). Children with HFA made more errors in between-search problems, particularly on more difficult problems, compared to controls.

Question 34

How did children with ADHD perform on the spatial working memory task?

Answer 34

Children with ADHD made significantly more errors than controls on the most difficult (8-box) spatial working memory problems, but their performance was better than that of children with HFA, especially on mid-difficulty problems.

Question 35

What executive function was impaired in children with HFA and ADHD in the Goldberg et al. (2005) study?

Answer 35

The study found significant impairments in spatial working memory (SWM) in children with HFA and ADHD.

Question 36

How did the performance of children with HFA and ADHD differ on the spatial working memory task?

Answer 36

Children with HFA made more errors than controls, especially on difficult problems like the 8-box and 6-box tasks. Children with ADHD had impairments too, but these were less severe than those observed in children with HFA.

Question 37

What does the study suggest about the severity of spatial working memory impairments in HFA compared to ADHD?

Answer 37

The study suggests that children with HFA experience a more severe impairment in spatial working memory than children with ADHD, who showed impairments only on the most difficult problems.

Question 38

What conclusion did the researchers draw regarding executive function impairments in children with HFA and ADHD?

Answer 38

The researchers concluded that spatial working memory is impaired in both ADHD and HFA, but other executive functions such as inhibition, planning, and set-shifting appeared intact in these groups.

Question 39

What is the significance of the findings in this study?

Answer 39

The findings suggest that spatial working memory is a particularly vulnerable area for children with neurodevelopmental disorders like HFA and ADHD, while other executive functions may not be as severely impaired.

Question 40

What are the issues with EF account of autism

Answer 40

* Uniqueness * Several aspects to EF: planning, working memory, inhibition, mental flexibility and not all children perform badly on all aspects of EF. * Russell (2002) found that people with autism often succeed on EF tasks when the task has a clear, logical rationale, such as the Stroop task, where the rule makes intuitive sense.

Question 41

Why is EF not unique to autism?

Answer 41

Problems with EF have also been found in people with schizophrenia (e.g., Elliot et al., 1995) & ADHD (Grodzinky & Diamond, 1992).

Question 42

What was the EF deficits found in people with schizophrenia?

Answer 42

Elliott et al. (1995) found impairments in planning, cognitive flexibility (set-shifting), and spatial working memory.

Question 43

What does Elliott et al. (1995) show about EF deficits in schizophrenia?

Answer 43

It shows that people with schizophrenia—especially those with chronic illness—have significant impairments in planning, cognitive flexibility, and working memory, similar to those observed in autism.

Question 44

What executive function deficits were found in ADHD that overlap with those reported in autism?

Answer 44

Grodzinsky & Diamond (1992) found that children with ADHD showed impaired impulse control, poor planning, set-shifting difficulties, and slower processing speed—deficits also observed in autism—suggesting these are not exclusive to one condition.

Question 45

How do shared EF deficits across disorders limit the explanatory power of the EF theory in autism?

Answer 45

If EF impairments appear across multiple conditions like ADHD and schizophrenia, it suggests that EF dysfunction is a general neurodevelopmental issue, not a unique or defining feature of autism, thus limiting its explanatory power.

Question 46

Why is it problematic to use EF deficits as a sole explanation for autistic behaviour?

Answer 46

EF deficits are also seen in non-autistic populations, relying solely on EF theory overlooks autism-specific traits and fails to account for the full range of cognitive and behavioural characteristics unique to autism.