CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,110Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesCognitive Abilities and TestingDevelopmental and Educational Neuropsychology

Training, maturation, and genetic influences on the development of executive attention

Open access
Rueda, M. Rosario, Rothbart, Mary K., McCandliss, Bruce D., Saccomanno, Lisa, Posner, Michael I.·2005·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
DOI 10.1073/pnas.0506897102PMC PMC1253585
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

A neural network underlying attentional control involves the anterior cingulate in addition to lateral prefrontal areas. An important development of this network occurs between 3 and 7 years of age. We have examined the efficiency of attentional networks across age and after 5 days of attention training (experimental group) compared with different types of no training (control groups) in 4-year-old and 6-year-old children. Strong improvement in executive attention and intelligence was found from ages 4 to 6 years. Both 4- and 6-year-olds showed more mature performance after the training than did the control groups. This finding applies to behavioral scores of the executive attention network as measured by the attention network test, event-related potentials recorded from the scalp during attention network test performance, and intelligence test scores. We also documented the role of the temperamental factor of effortful control and the DAT1 gene in individual differences in attention. Overall, our data suggest that the executive attention network appears to develop under strong genetic control, but that it is subject to educational interventions during development.

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 · 10.1073/pnas.0506897102

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • Targeted intervention efforts delivered to individual children can improve aspects of Conscientiousness.

    “There is also evidence that targeted intervention efforts delivered to individual children can improve aspects of Conscientiousness.”

    From Personality Psychology and Economics (2011) · cites this paper as Rueda et al. [2005]

    The Abstract and Discussion report that targeted attention training in 4- and 6-year-olds produced more mature executive-attention performance, a capacity the paper relates to effortful control. But the Results tables show no improvement in parent-rated effortful control after training, and the paper does not establish an improvement in Conscientiousness itself. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Attention training improves performance on computer tasks of attention in children aged four to six.

    “For instance, Rueda and colleagues [2005] designed a set of computer exercises to train attention in children between four and six years of age.Children in the intervention group improved in performance on computer tasks of attention relative to children who instead watched interactive videos for a comparable amount of time.”

    From Personality Psychology and Economics (2011) · cites this paper as Rueda et al. [2005]

    The Methods describe computer-based attention exercises for 4- and 6-year-olds and, in Experiments 2 and 3, five-session video controls. The Abstract reports more mature attention-test performance in trained children than in controls. However, the Discussion says the attention-test data alone did not provide sufficient evidence for a specific training effect, so the claim overstates the comparative improvement. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The 5-day attentional control training was more effective for 4-year-olds than for 6-year-olds.

    “Of interest, the effectiveness of this training program was greater for 4-year-olds than 6-year-olds.”

    From Assessing Executive Function in Preschoolers (2012) · cites this paper as Rueda, Rothbart, McCandliss, Saccomanno, & Posner, 2005

  • A 5-day computerized training program that taps attentional control produced significant gains in attentional control and spatial reasoning in preschoolers.

    “For example, a series of small randomized controlled trials of a 5-day training program involving child friendly computer exercises tapping attentional control processes achieved significant improvements in aspects of attentional control as well as spatial reasoning (Rueda, Rothbart, McCandliss, Saccomanno, & Posner, 2005).”

    From Assessing Executive Function in Preschoolers (2012) · cites this paper as Rueda, Rothbart, McCandliss, Saccomanno, & Posner, 2005

  • Cognitive training in preschoolers that targets attentional control and working memory is effective at least in the short term.

    “While this is a controversial area of research and practice, a couple of studies have shown cognitive training in preschoolers focusing on attentional control and working memory to be effective, at least in the short-term.”

    From Assessing Executive Function in Preschoolers (2012) · cites this paper as Rueda, Rothbart, McCandliss, Saccomanno, & Posner, 2005

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 28

  1. [1]Botwinick, M. M., Braver, T. S., Barch, D. M., Carter, C. S. & Cohen, J. D. (2001) Psychol. Rev. 108, 624-652. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. [2]Bush, G., Luu, P. & Posner, M. I. (2000) Trends Cogn. Sci. 4, 215-222. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. [3]Fan, J., Flombaum, J. I., McCandliss, B. D., Thomas, K. M. & Posner, M. I. (2003) NeuroImage 18, 42-45. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. [5]Fan, J., Wu, Y., Fossella, J. & Posner, M. I. (2001) BMC Neurosci. 2, 14. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. [6]Fossella, J., Sommer T., Fan, J., Wu, Y., Swanson, J. M., Pfaff, D. W. & Posner, M. I. (2002) BMC Neurosci. 3, 14. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. [7]Diamond, A., Briand, L., Fossella, J. & Gehlbach, L. (2004) Am. J. Psychiatry 161, 125-132. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. [8]Blasi, G., Mattay, V. S., Bertolino, A., Elevag, B., Callicott, J. H., Das, Saumitra, Kolachana, B. S., Egan, M. F., Goldberg, T. E. & Weinberger, D. R. (2005) J. Neurosci. 25, 5038-5045. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. [9]Fan, J., Fossella, J. A., Summer, T. & Posner, M. I. (2003) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 100, 7406-7411. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. [10]Rueda, M. R., Fan, J., Halparin, J., Gruber, D., Lercari, L. P., McCandliss, B. D. & Posner, M. I. (2004) Neuropsychologia 42, 1029-1040. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. [11]Eriksen, B. A. & Ericksen, C. W. (1974) Percept. Psychophys. 16, 143-149. [Google Scholar]
  11. [12]Wang, X., Merzenich, M. M., Sameshima, K. & Jenkins, W. M. (1995) Nature 378, 71-75. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. [13]Shaywitz, B. A., Shaywitz, S. E., Blachman, B. A., Pugh, K. R., Fulbright, R. K., Skudlarski, P., Mencl, W. E., Constable, R. T., Holahan, J. M., Marchione, K. E., et al. (2004) Biol. Psychiatry 55, 926-933. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. [14]Temple, E., Deutsch, G. K., Poldrack, R. A., Miller, S. L., Tallal, P., Merzenich, M. M. & Gabrieli, J. D. E. (2003) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 100, 2860-2865. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. [17]Rothbart, M. K., Ahadi, S. A. & Hershey, K. (1994) Merrill Palmer Quart. 40, 21-39. [Google Scholar]
  15. [18]Gerardi-Caulton, G. (2000) Dev. Sci. 3, 397-404. [Google Scholar]
  16. [19]Chang, F. & Burns, B. M. (2005) Child Dev. 76, 247-263. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. [20]Tucker, D. M. (1993) Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol. 87, 154-163. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. [21]Rueda, M. R., Posner, M. I., Rothbart, M. K. & Davis-Stober, C. P. (2004) BMC Neurosci. 5, 39. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. [22]van Veen, V. & Carter, C. S. (2002) J. Cognit. Neurosci. 14, 593-602. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. [23]Rueda, M. R., Posner, M. I. & Rothbart, M. K. (2005) Dev. Neuropsychol. 28, 573-594. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. [24]Duncan, J., Seitz, R. J., Kolodny, J., Bor, D., Herzog, H., Ahmed, A., Newell, F. N. & Emslie, H. (2000) Science 289, 457-460. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. [25]Klingberg, T., Forssberg, H. & Westerberg, H. (2002) J. Clin. Exp. Neuropyschol. 24, 781-791. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. [26]Rothbart, M. K., Ellis, L. K., Rueda, M. R. & Posner, M. I. (2003) J. Pers. 71, 1113-1143. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. [27]Goldsmith, H. H., Lemery, K. S., Buss, K. A. & Campos, J. J. (1999) Dev. Psychol. 35, 972-985. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. [29]Green, C. S. & Bavelier, D. (2003) Nature 423, 534-537. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. [30]Kerns, K. A., Esso, K. & Thompson, J. (1999) Dev. Neuropsychol. 16, 273-295. [Google Scholar]
  27. [31]Dowsett, S. M. & Livesey, D. J. (2000) Dev. Psychobiol. 36, 161-174. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. [32]Olesen, P. J., Westerberg, H. & Klingberg, T. (2004) Nat. Neurosci. 1, 75-79. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Rueda, M. R., Rothbart, M. K., McCandliss, B. D., Saccomanno, L., & Posner, M. I.
Affiliations
University of Oregon (US)
ORCID
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Publisher
National Academy of Sciences
Published
2005-09-28
Volume
102
Issue
41
Pages
14931-14936
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
DOI
10.1073/pnas.0506897102
PMC
PMC1253585
OpenAlex
W2161289687
Cited by
1,110
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 34 · 2022: 44 · 2021: 46 · 2020: 120 · 2019: 59 · 2018: 54 · 2017: 58 · 2016: 51 · 2015: 66 · 2014: 59 · 2013: 78 · 2012: 84
FWCI
15.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (HD-38051, P01HD038051)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Developmental and Educational Neuropsychology
Keywords
executive attention, attentional control, attention training, child development, anterior cingulate cortex, lateral prefrontal cortex, intelligence, effortful control, DAT1 gene, individual differences in attention, event-related potentials
MeSH terms
Attention, Child, Child Development, Child, Preschool, Electroencephalography, Electrophoresis, Agar Gel, Evoked Potentials, Female, Genotype, Gyrus Cinguli, Humans, Intelligence Tests, Male, Models, Neurological, Oregon, Teaching, Temperament, DNA Primers, Dopamine Plasma Membrane Transport Proteins

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