Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 840

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 12 of the 12 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

How specific is the relation between executive function and theory of mind? Contributions of inhibitory control and working memory

Carlson, Stephanie M., Moses, Louis J., Breton, Casey·2002·Infant and Child Development
DOI 10.1002/icd.298
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The relation between executive function (EF) and theory of mind (ToM) may involve specific processes of inhibition and/or working memory capacity contributing to ToM, or it might be a reflection of general intellectual ability. To differentiate these alternatives, we administered task batteries measuring inhibitory control (IC), working memory, and ToM, as well as measures of verbal and performance intelligence, to 47 typically developing preschool children. Inhibitory control tasks in which a dominant response needed to be suppressed while a subdominant response was activated (Conflict IC) significantly predicted performance on false belief tasks over and above working memory, the intelligence measures, a simple delay task (Delay IC), and age. In contrast, working memory, Delay IC, and intelligence were not significant in this analysis. Conflict IC, but not Delay IC, was related to working memory. Together, these findings suggest that the combination of inhibition and working memory (as reflected in Conflict IC tasks) may be central to the relation between EF and false belief understanding. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/icd.298

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 840

Metadata

Authors
Carlson, S. M., Moses, L. J., & Breton, C.
Venue
Infant and Child Development
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2002-05-24
Volume
11
Issue
2
Pages
73-92
ISSN
  • 1522-7219 (ISSN-L)
  • 1522-7227
DOI
10.1002/icd.298
OpenAlex
W1975465685
Cited by
840
References
12
FWCI
33.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.