CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,598Child and Animal Learning DevelopmentDevelopmental and Educational NeuropsychologyNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

The relationship between cognition and action: performance of children 312–7 years old on a stroop- like day-night test

Gerstadt, Cherie L., Hong, Yoon Joo, Diamond, Adele·1994·Cognition
DOI 10.1016/0010-0277(94)90068-x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

One hundred and sixty children 3 1/2-7 years of age (10 M, 10 F at each 6-month interval) were tested on a task that requires inhibitory control of action plus learning and remembering two rules. They were asked to say "day" whenever a black card with the moon and stars appeared and to say "night" when shown a white card with a bright sun. Children < 5 years had great difficulty. They started out performing well, but could not sustain this over the course of the 16-trial session. Response latency decreased from 3 1/2 to 4 1/2 years. Children < 4 1/2 years performed well when they took very long to respond. To test whether the requirement to learn and remember two rules alone was sufficient to cause children difficulty, 80 children 3 1/2-5 years old were tested on a control version of the task ("say 'day' to one abstract design and 'night' to another"). Even the youngest children performed at a high level. We conclude that the requirement to learn and remember two rules is not in itself sufficient to account for the poor performance of the younger children in the experimental condition.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/0010-0277(94)90068-x

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The Day-Night task requires children to inhibit a dominant verbal response rather than an instinctive motor response.

    “Instead of inhibiting an instinctive motor response, the Day-Night task requires children to inhibit a dominant verbal response.”

    From Assessing Executive Function in Preschoolers (2012) · cites this paper as Gerstadt, Hong, & Diamond, 1994

  • Children younger than 41⁄2 years were slow on the Day-Night test, while average latency for older age groups did not differ.

    “Children younger than 4½ years were slow on the Day-Night test, while the average latency for the older age groups did not differ.”

    From Assessing Executive Function in Preschoolers (2012) · cites this paper as Gerstadt et al., 1994

  • On the Day-Night test, the most significant improvement in accuracy occurred between 41⁄2 and 5 years, although performance gains continued to age 7 years.

    “In terms of accuracy, the most significant improvement in performance was observed between 4½ and 5 years, although performance gains continued to age 7 years.”

    From Assessing Executive Function in Preschoolers (2012) · cites this paper as Gerstadt et al., 1994

  • Children aged 5 years and older performed well on the Day-Night test in terms of both accuracy and speed.

    “In contrast, children aged 5 years and older performed well both in terms of accuracy and speed.”

    From Assessing Executive Function in Preschoolers (2012) · cites this paper as Gerstadt et al., 1994

  • All preschool age groups perform better at the start than at the end of the Day-Night test, suggesting the task requires considerable cognitive effort that is difficult to sustain.

    “Interestingly, all preschool age groups perform better at the start than at the end of the Day-Night test, suggesting that the task requires considerable cognitive effort that is difficult to sustain (Gerstadt, Hong, & Diamond, 1994).”

    From Assessing Executive Function in Preschoolers (2012) · cites this paper as Gerstadt, Hong, & Diamond, 1994

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gerstadt, C. L., Hong, Y. J., & Diamond, A.
Affiliations
University of Pennsylvania (US)
Corresponding author
Diamond, Adele
ORCID
Diamond, Adele
Venue
Cognition
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1994-11
Volume
53
Issue
2
Pages
129-153
ISSN
0010-0277 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/0010-0277(94)90068-x
OpenAlex
W2121154230
Cited by
1,598
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 58 · 2025: 48 · 2024: 49 · 2023: 72 · 2022: 77 · 2021: 89 · 2020: 67 · 2019: 106 · 2018: 70 · 2017: 90 · 2016: 84 · 2015: 78 · 2014: 85 · 2013: 85 · 2012: 73
FWCI
10.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Cognition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Developmental and Educational Neuropsychology
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Keywords
Stroop-like task, inhibitory control, cognitive development, children, rule induction, response latency, executive function, age differences in performance
MeSH terms
Age Factors, Child, Child, Preschool, Cognition, Female, Humans, Language, Language Tests, Male, Task Performance and Analysis

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