Introduction: A History

of Executive Functioning 1
as a Theoretical and Clinical
Construct

Sam Goldstein, Jack A. Naglieri,

Dana Princiotta, and Tulio M. Otero

and after a period of recovery changes in Phineas’

Introduction
Executive function (EF) has come to be an
umbrella term used for a diversity of hypothe-
sized cognitive processes, including planning,
working memory, attention, inhibition, self-mon-
itoring, self-regulation, and initiation carried out
by prefrontal areas of the frontal lobes.
Although the concept of EF was first defined in
the 1970s, the concept of a control mechanism
was discussed as far back as the 1840s. Phineas
Gage offers perhaps one of the most fascinating
case studies associated with EF. In 1840, as a rail-
road construction foreman, Phineas was pierced
with a large iron rod through his frontal lobe (see
Ratiu & Talos, 2004). This accident destroyed a
majority of his left frontal lobe. Phineas survived
S. Goldstein, Ph.D. (*)
Neurology, Learning and Behavior Center, University
of Utah School of Medicine, 230 South 500 East,
Suite 100, Salt Lake City, UT 84102, USA
e-mail: info@samgoldstein.com
J.A. Naglieri, Ph.D.
University of Virginia, Charlottesville,
VA 22904, USA
e-mail: jnaglieri@gmail.com
D. Princiotta, Ph.D.
Neurology, Learning and Behavior Center, School
of Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City,
UT 84102, USA
T.M. Otero, Ph.D.
The Chicago School of Professional Psychology,
Loyola University, Chicago, IL, USA
behavior and personality became apparent.
Phineas was described as “disinhibited” or
“hyperactive,” which suggested a lack of inhibi-
tion often found in those with damage to the pre-
frontal cortex (Pribram, 1973). This case and
others prompted early brain researchers to further
investigate the role of the frontal lobes and the
concept of executive function.
By the 1950s, psychologists and neuroscien-
tists became more interested in understanding the
role of the prefrontal cortex in intelligent behav-
ior. British psychologist Donald Broadbent
(1953) described differences between automatic
and controlled processes. This distinction was
further elaborated by Shifrin and Schneider
(1977). These authors introduced the notion of
selective attention to which EF is closely related.
In 1975, psychologist Michael Posner coined the
term “cognitive control” in a book chapter titled
“Attention and Cognitive Control.” Posner pro-
posed that there is a separate executive branch of
the attentional system responsible for focusing
attention on selected aspects of the environment.
Alan Baddeley proposed a similar system as part
of his model of working memory, arguing there
must be a component which he referred to as the
“central executive” allowing information to be
manipulated in short-term memory. Shallice
(1988) also suggested that attention is regulated
by a “supervisory system which can over-ride
automatic responses in favor of scheduling behav-
ior on the basis of plans or intentions.” Consensus
slowly emerged that this control system is housed

S. Goldstein and J.A. Naglieri (eds.), Handbook of Executive Functioning, 3

DOI 10.1007/978-1-4614-8106-5_1, © Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014
4 S. Goldstein et al.
in the most anterior portion of the brain, the pre-
frontal cortex.
Pribram (1973) was one of the first to use the
term “executive” when discussing matters of pre-
frontal cortex functioning. Since then at least 30
or more constructs have been included under the
umbrella term, EF, making the concept hard to
operationally define. Many authors have made
attempts to define the concept of executive func-
tion using models that range from one to multiple
components. Lezak (1995) suggested that EFs
consisted of components related to volition, plan-
ning, purposeful action, and effective perfor-
mance. It has been hypothesized that each
component involves a distinct set of related
behaviors. Reynolds and Horton (2006) sug-
gested that EFs are distinct from general knowl-
edge. They suggest that executive functions
represent the capacity to plan, to do things, and to
perform adaptive actions, while general knowl-
edge related to the retention of an organized set
of objective facts. They further hypothesized that
EF involves decision making, planning actions,
and generating novel motor outputs adapted to
external demands rather than the passive reten-
tion of information. Naglieri and Goldstein
(2013) based their view of the behavioral aspects
of executive function on a large national study of
children. They suggest that executive function is
best represented as a single phenomena, concep-
tualized as the efficiency with which individuals
go about acquiring knowledge as well as how
well problems can be solved across nine areas
(attention, emotion regulation, flexibility, inhibi-
tory control, initiation, organization, planning,
self-monitoring, and working memory).
A Review of EF Definitions
Anderson (2002): “Processes associated with EF
are numerous, but the principal elements include
anticipation, goal selection, planning, initiation
of activity, self-regulation, mental flexibility,
deployment of attention, and utilization of feed-
back.” (p. 71)
Banich (2009): … “providing resistance to infor-
mation that is distracting or task irrelevant,
switching behavior task goals, utilizing relevant
information in support of decision making, cate-
gorizing or otherwise abstracting common ele-
ments across items, and handling novel
information or situations.” (p. 89)
Barkley (2011a): “EF is thus a self-directed set of
actions intended to alter a delayed (future) out-
come (attain a goal for instance).” (p. 11)
Baron (2004): “Executive functioning skills
“allow an individual to perceive stimuli from his
or her environment, respond adaptively, flexibly
change direction, anticipate future goals, con-
sider consequences, and respond in an integrated
or commonsense way.” (p. 135)
Best, Miller, and Jones (2009): “Executive func-
tion (EF) serves as an umbrella term to encom-
pass the goal-oriented control functions of the
PFC [prefrontal cortex].” (p. 180)
Borkowski and Burke (1996): “EF coordinates
two levels of cognition by monitoring and control-
ling the use of the knowledge and strategies in con-
cordance with the metacognitive level.” (p. 241)
Burgess (1997): “a range of poorly defined pro-
cesses which are putatively involved in activities
such as “problem-solving,” … “planning” …
‘initiation’ of activity, ‘cognitive estimation,’ and
‘prospective memory.’” (p. 81)
Corbett et al. (2009) “Executive function (EF) is
an overarching term that refers to mental control
processes that enable physical, cognitive, and
emotional self-control.” (p. 210)
Crone (2009): “For example, during childhood
and adolescence, children gain increasing capac-
ity for inhibition and mental flexibility, as is evi-
dent from, for example, improvements in the
ability to switch back and forth between multiple
tasks.” (p. 826)
Dawson and Guare (2010): “Executive skills
allow us to organize our behavior over time and
override immediate demands in favor of longer-
term goals.” (p. 1)
1 Introduction: A History of Executive Functioning…
Delis (2012): “Executive functions reflect the
ability to manage and regulate one’s behavior in
order to achieve desired goals.” (p. 14)
Delis (2012): “Neither a single ability nor a com-
prehensive definition fully captures the concep-
tual scope of executive functions; rather,
executive functioning is the sum product of a col-
lection of higher level skills that converge to
enable an individual to adapt and thrive in com-
plex psychosocial environments.” (p. 14)
Denckla (1996): “EF has become a useful short-
hand phrase for a set of domain-general control
processes….” (p. 263)
Friedman, Haberstick, Willcutt, Miywake,
Young, et al. (2007): “… a family of cognitive
control processes that operate on lower-level pro-
cesses to regulate and shape behavior.” (p. 893)
Funahashi (2001): “Executive function is consid-
ered to be a product of the coordinated operation
of various processes to accomplish a particular
goal in a flexible manner.” (p. 1)
Fuster (1997): EF “…is closely related, if not
identical, to the function of temporal synthesis of
action, which rests on the same subordinate func-
tions. Temporal synthesis, however, does not
need a central executive.” (p. 165)
Gioia, Isquith, Guy, and Kenworthy (2000): “The
executive functions are a collection of processes
that are responsible for guiding, directing, and
managing cognitive, emotional, and behavioral
functions, particularly during active, novel prob-
lem solving.” (p. 1)
Gioia and Isquith (2004): “The executive func-
tions serve as an integrative directive system
exerting regulatory control over the basic,
domain-specific neuropsychological functions
(e.g., language, visuospatial functions, memory,
emotional experience, motor skills) in the service
of reaching an intended goal.” (p. 139)
Hughes (2009): “The term executive function’
(EF), therefore, refers to a complex cognitive
5
construct encompassing the whole set of pro-
cesses underlying these controlled goal-directed
responses to novel or difficult situations, pro-
cesses which are generally associated with the
prefrontal cortex (PFC).” (p. 313)
Lezak (1995): “Executive functioning asks how
and whether a person goes about doing some-
thing.” (p. 42)
Lezak (1995): “Executive functions refer to a
collection of interrelated cognitive and behav-
ioral skills that are responsible for purposeful,
goal-directed activity, and include the highest
level of human functioning, such as intellect,
thought, self-control, and social interaction.”
(p. 42)
Luria (1966): “…Syntheses underlying own
actions, without which goal-directed, selective
behavior is impossible.” (p. 224)
Luria (1966): “…besides the disturbance of ini-
tiative and the other aforementioned behavioral
disturbances, almost all patients with a lesion of
the frontal lobes have a marked loss of their ‘crit-
ical faculty,’ i.e., a disturbance of their ability to
correctly evaluate their own behavior and the
adequacy of their actions.” (p. 227)
McCloskey (2011): “It is helpful to think of exec-
utive functions as a set of independent but coordi-
nated processes rather than a single trait.” (p. 2)
McCloskey (2006): “Executive Functions can be
thought of as a diverse group of highly specific
cognitive processes collected together to direct
cognition, emotion, and motor activity, including
mental functions associated with the ability to
engage in purposeful, organized, strategic, self-
regulated, goal directed behavior.” (p. 1)
Miller and Cohen (2001): [our theory] “suggests
that executive control involves the active mainte-
nance of a particular type of information: The
goals and rules of a task.” (p. 185)
Oosterlaan, Scheres, and Sergeant (2005): “EF
encompasses meta-cognitive processes that
6 S. Goldstein et al.
enable efficient planning, execution, verification,
and regulation of goal directed behavior.” (p. 69)
Pribram (1973): “… the frontal cortex is criti-
cally involved in implementing executive pro-
grammes where these are necessary to maintain
brain organization in the face of insufficient
redundancy in input processing and in the out-
comes of behavior.” (p. 301)
Robbins (1996): “Executive function is required
when effective new plans of action must be for-
mulated, and appropriate sequences of responses
must be selected and scheduled.” (p. 1463)
Roberts and Pennington (1996): EF “refers to a
collection of related but somewhat distinct abili-
ties such as planning, set maintenance, impulse
control, working memory, and attentional con-
trol.” (p. 105)
Stuss and Benson (1986): “Executive functions is
a generic term that refers to a variety of different
capacities that enable purposeful, goal-directed
behavior, including behavioral regulation, work-
ing memory, planning and organizational skills,
and self-monitoring.” (p. 272)
Vriezen and Pigott (2002): “Executive function
has been defined in a variety of ways but is gener-
ally viewed as a multidimensional construct
encapsulating higher-order cognitive processes
that control and regulate a variety of cognitive,
emotional and behavioral functions.” (p. 296)
Welsh and Pennington (1988): “Executive func-
tion is defined as the ability to maintain an appro-
priate problem-solving set for attainment of a
future goal.” (p. 201)
A Brief Review of EF Models
Conceptualizations of EF have been largely
driven by observations of individuals having suf-
fered frontal lobe damage. Groups of such indi-
viduals were first described by Luria and reported
to exhibit disorganized actions and strategies for
everyday tasks. Initially this came to be referred
to as dysexecutive syndrome. Such individuals
tended to perform normally when clinical- or
laboratory-based tests were used to assess more
fundamental cognitive processes such as mem-
ory, learning, language, and reasoning, It was
therefore determined that there must be some
overarching system responsible for coordinating
these other cognitive resources that appeared to
be working inefficiently in patients with frontal
lobe injuries. Recent functional neuroimaging
studies have supported the theory of the PFC as
responsible for EF, demonstrating that two parts
of the prefrontal cortex, the ACC and DLPFC,
appear to be particularly important for complet-
ing tasks thought to be sensitive to EF. In this sec-
tion we will provide a brief chronological
overview of the theories that appear to have
driven our appreciation, definition, and under-
standing of EF.
Automatic and Controlled Processes
Donald Broadbent’s (1953) model of automatic
and controlled processes, otherwise referred to as
the filter model, proposed that a filter serves as a
buffer that selects information for conscious
awareness (Broadbent, 1958). When discussing
competing stimuli, the filter determines which
information must be distinguished as relevant or
irrelevant (Barkley 2011a). In other words, select
information will pass through the filter (as rele-
vant), while the remaining information is ignored
(irrelevant) (Broadbent, 1958). Under this model,
terminologies such as “sensory store” and “sen-
sory filter” are utilized to explain the instrument
in which processing of stimuli occurs at the pre-
attentive level, focusing on properties such as the
sex of the speaker or type of sound (Driver,
2001). Through a visual diagram, the processing
of information could be represented with parallel
lines up to a point in which processing is then
managed with the filter (Schiffrin & Schneider,
1977), resembling a bottleneck, an additional
name for Broadbent’s model (bottleneck theory)
1 Introduction: A History of Executive Functioning…
(Driver, 2001). If not for this filter/buffer,
Broadbent believed that the system would
become inundated or overloaded with informa-
tion (Broadbent, 1958; Driver, 2001).
Cognitive Control
Posner and Snyder (1975) expanded upon the
work of Broadbent and previous researchers with
his “cognitive control” model (Posner & Snyder,
1975). This conceptualization utilized the bottle-
neck theory postulated by Broadbent by further-
ing the examination of the role of attention during
specific higher-level tasks, including visual
searches, for example (Posner & Snyder, 1975).
However, Posner also suggested that cognitive
control is needed to manage thoughts and emo-
tions (Rueda, Posner, & Rothbart, 2004). By cog-
nitive control, Posner refers to processes that
guide behaviors, analogous to working defini-
tions of executive functioning today. According
to Posner & Snyder (1975) cognitive control was
regarded as responsible in overwriting automatic
responses, illustrating the selective nature of the
model as well as the inhibitory nature (Posner
and Snyder 1975). In this model, cognitive con-
trol allows one to adapt from situation to situa-
tion depending upon the goals of the individual
(Checa, Rodriguez-Bailon, & Rueda, 2008).
Controlled Processes
Schiffrin and Schneider (1977) proposed that
because our ability to attend is limited, certain
stimuli must be favored over opposing stimuli.
They studied the strength of a controlled pro-
cesses theory of detection, search, and attention
by comparing automatic detection with con-
trolled search and concluded that by learning
categories, controlled search performance also
improved (Schiffrin & Schneider, 1977). In this
dual processing theory, automatic processing
activates a learned sequence of elements and
proceeds automatically, while controlled pro-
cessing entails a temporary activation of a
7
sequence of elements that can be established rap-
idly, but they do require attention, nonetheless
(Schiffrin & Schneider, 1977). Automatic pro-
cesses are “effortless, rapid, unavailable to con-
sciousness, and unavoidable; permanent
connections that are developed with practice or
training” (Schiffrin & Schneider, 1977, p. 2).
Without a need for active attention or active con-
trol, an individual is thus engaged in an auto-
matic process. Controlled processes are “slow,
effortful, and completely conscious; a temporary
sequence of nodes activated under control of,
and through attention by the subject” (Schiffrin
& Schneider, 1977, p. 2). With repeated practice,
skills that were controlled can become auto-
mated, meaning that skills will not require as
much attention resources to be completed
(Schneider & Chein, 2003).
Supervisory Attentional System
Shallice (2002) constructed a model of the execu-
tive system called the contention scheduling/
supervisory attentional system model. Contention
scheduling refers to the controlling mediator of
inhibition of competing actions when selecting
an action to be performed. The supervisory atten-
tional system is a mediator for nonroutine situa-
tions in which inhibition may be necessary to
make a decision during a novel encounter
(Shallice, 1988, 2002). When deficits exist in this
supervisory attentional system, Shallice argues
that executive disorders are possible (e.g., disin-
hibition) (Shallice, 2002).
Central Executive
Baddeley, Sala, and Robbins’s (1996) central
executive hypothesis views the executive as a
unified system with multiple functions, a
homunculus of sorts. The central executive over-
sees the phonological loop, visuospatial sketch-
pad, and an episodic buffer. Below the central
executive, Baddeley envisioned and described
the following functions: time-sharing, selective
8 S. Goldstein et al.
attention, temporary activation of long-term
memory, and switching of retrieval plans
(Baddeley, 1986).
Cross Temporal Model
Fuster’s 1997 model of cross-temporal synthesis is
based on three concepts: interference control,
planning, and working memory. The theory pro-
posed that the main goal of executive functions lie
within organizing behavior (Barkley, 2011a).
Contrasting from previous models, especially
Baddeley’s central executive model, Fuster does
not “place a ghost in the machine” (Barkley,
2011a, p. 12). There is no central executive or sin-
gle component within Fuster’s theory; rather, tem-
poral mediation captures the interaction between
short-term memory and the attention set (Fuster,
2000). In Fuster’s terminology, “new or recently
learned behavior, sensory impulses are processed
along the sensory hierarchy and into the motor
hierarchy. Sensory information is thus translated
into action, processed down the motor hierarchy to
produce changes in the environment.”
Integrative Model
Miller and Cohen’s (2001) model focused on
cognitive control and particularly the activities
that represent maintenance of goals. They also
refer to executive functioning as an umbrella
term of cognitive processes under goal-directed
behavior. In their model executive functioning is
a top-down system serving to encourage sensory
and motor processing areas into interacting with
each other (Miller & Cohen, 2001). Maps are cre-
ated between the inputs and outputs in this model,
wherein bias signals guide activities along the
neural pathways (Miller & Cohen, 2001).
Cascade of Control
Banich (2009) proposed that sequential cascade
of brain areas attributed to maintaining atten-
tional sets. According to Banich (2009) the
DLPFC is the first to act using top-down atten-
tion to activate brain regions involved, and other
regions of the cortex determine what information
is necessary for an appropriate response. Finally,
the posterior dorsal cingulate may serve as a
catch all for the problems associated with selec-
tion thus far in this model (Banich, 2009).
Extended Phenotype
Barkley (2011a) summarizes executive function-
ing with the term self-regulation composed of (1)
working memory, (2) management of emotions,
(3) problem solving, and (4) analysis and synthe-
sis into new behavioral goals. Processes include
working memory, planning, problem solving,
self-monitoring, interference control, and self-
motivation (Barkley, 2011b).
A Developmental Perspective of EF
An important foundation for understanding the
development of EF can be found in the works of
Luria (1963, 1966, 1973). Luria’s neurodevelop-
mental model postulated specific developmental
stages related to stages of higher cortical matura-
tion. Luria suggested that various stages of men-
tal development encountered as children mature
provide a unique opportunity to study how EFs
develop (Horton, 1987).
Luria (1966) postulated a number of stages by
which neuropsychological functions critical for
intelligence and EF are developed. These stages
were thought to interact with environmental stim-
uli based on Vygotsky’s cultural and historical
theory (Van der Veer and Valsiner, 1994). Vygotsky
developed a complex theory related to language
and thought processes. He postulated that environ-
mental and/or cultural influences were important
in understanding the development of neurological
structures responsible for higher-level mental abil-
ities, such as abstraction, memory, and attention.
Luria expanded Vygotsky’s original theories
(Vygotsky, 1997a, 1997b, 1997c, 1997d).
In 1966, Luria postulated that higher cortical
functions involving EF required interaction of
1 Introduction: A History of Executive Functioning…
normal neurological development and specific
environmental stimuli of a cultural, historical,
and social nature of development. In this way,
Luria’s thoughts are very consistent with current
theory suggesting that particular phenotypes are
shaped by environmental experience, leading to
multi-finality or multiple endophenotypes. Thus,
the result of the optimal interaction of neurologi-
cal development and environmental stimuli
would result in more efficient cortical function-
ing related to abilities such as language, atten-
tion, memory, intelligence, and EF.
In 1980, Luria proposed five stages of human
development:
Stage One: This stage begins in the first year of
life and involves development of the brain
stem structures such as the reticular activating
system.
Stage Two: This stage involves the activation of
the primary sensory areas for vision, hearing,
and tactile perception and the primary motor
areas of gross motor movement during the
second year of life. This is consistent with
Piaget’s stage of sensorimotor operations.
Stage Three: This stage involves development of
single modalities in the secondary association
areas of the brain as children enter their pre-
school years. The child’s mind recognized and
reproduces various symbolic materials and
develops the ability to model physical move-
ment. This stage is consistent with Piaget’s
concept of preoperational functioning.
Stage Four: This stage begins as the child enters
first or second grade (7–8 years of age) as the
tertiary areas of the parietal lobes are acti-
vated. The tertiary parietal lobes, the tem-
poral parietal and occipital lobes join
anatomically and involve coordination of the
three major sensory input channels. During
this stage, the child’s mind begins to make
sense of sensory input and environmental
stimulation. It is particularly important for the
development of complex mental abilities.
This stage fits Piaget’s concept of concrete
operations.
Stage Five: During this stage, the brain becomes
activated beginning at approximately 8 years
of age, through adolescence and adulthood.
9
This operation involves the frontal lobes; the
area anterior to the central sulcus is crucial to
the development of complex mental abilities
involving abstract thinking, intentional mem-
ory, as well as the execution monitoring and
evaluating for complex learning (Stuss &
Benson, 1984). This stage fits Piaget’s concept
of formal operations.
Beyond Luria’s stage theory of brain develop-
ment, his theoretical account of dynamic brain
function is perhaps one of the most complete of
all theorists (Lewandowski, Lovett, Gordon, &
Codding, 2008). Luria conceptualized four inter-
connected levels of brain-behavior relationships
and neurocognitive functioning including (1) the
structure of the brain, (2) the functional organiza-
tion based on structure, (3) syndromes and impair-
ments arising in brain disorders, and (4) clinical
methods of assessment (Korkman, 1999). Luria’s
theoretical formulations, methods, and ideas are
well articulated in his books, Higher Cortical
Functions in Man (1966, 1980) and The Working
Brain (1973). Luria viewed the brain as a func-
tional mosaic, the parts of which interact in differ-
ent combinations to subserve different cognitive
processes (Luria, 1973). No single area of the
brain functions without input from other areas;
thus, integration is a key principle of brain func-
tion within a learning framework. Thought, prob-
lem solving, EF, and intelligent behavior result
from interaction of complex brain activity across
various areas. Luria’s (1966, 1973, 1980) research
on the functional aspects of brain structures forms
the basis for the development of the planning,
attention, simultaneous, and successive processes
(PASS) theory, described by Das, Naglieri, and
Kirby (1994) and operationalized by Naglieri,
Das, and Goldstein (2013).
In the Lurian framework of intellectual func-
tion, attention, language, sensory, perception,
motor, visuospatial facilities, learning, and mem-
ory are complex, interrelated capacities. They are
composed of flexible and interactive subcompo-
nents, mediated by an equally flexible interaction
neural network (Luria, 1962, 1980). These cogni-
tive functions as conceptualized by Luria are
modulated by three separate but connected
functional units that provide the four basic
10
psychological processes. These three brain “sys-
tems” are referred to as functional units because
their neuropsychological mechanisms work in
separate but interrelated systems. Multiple brain
systems mediate complex cognitive functions.
For example, multiple brain regions interact to
mediate attentional processes (Mirsky, 1996;
Castellanos et al., 2003). The executive functions
managed by the third functional unit, as described
by Luria, regulate the attentional processes of the
first functional unit in sustaining the appropriate
level of arousal and vigilance necessary for the
detection of selection of relevant details from the
environment. Consider the example of response
inhibition. Inhibitory behavior allows a child to
resist or inhibit responding to saline by irrelevant
details during a task. This improves task perfor-
mance. Response inhibition allows the child to
focus over time on task-relevant features.
Prefrontal areas of the frontal lobes of the
brain are associated with the third functional unit
(Luria, 1980). The prefrontal cortex is well con-
nected with every distinct functional unit of the
brain (Goldberg, 2009). This unit is most likely
responsible for planning and is involved with
most behaviors we typically consider associated
with executive function and executive function
capacity (McCloskey, Perkins, and Van Divner,
2009). The third functional unit is also further
differentiated into three zones with the primary
zone in the motor strip of frontal lobe being con-
cerned with motor output. The secondary zone is
responsible for the sequencing of motor activity
and speech production, whereas the tertiary zone
is primarily involved with behaviors typically
described as executive function. Damage to any
of several areas of the frontal regions has been
related to difficulties with impulse control, learn-
ing from mistakes, delay of gratification, and effi-
cient attention. Because the third functional unit
has rich connections with other parts of the brain,
cortical and subcortical, there are often forward
and backward influences to and from other
regions such as the thalamic and hypothalamic
and limbic areas. This set of connections, consis-
tent with evolutionary theory, is reflecting a
building of the brain over billions of years from a
S. Goldstein et al.
brain stem forward to the frontal lobes.
Additionally a growing body of evidence points
to a network of connected regions in the adjacent
frontal and parietal lobes which have been impli-
cated in higher auto-processing such as attention,
decision making, and intelligent behavior (Kolb
and Whishaw, 2009).
Luria wrote that the frontal lobe synthesized
the information about the outside world and is the
means whereby the behavior of the organism is
regulated in conformity with the effect produced
by its actions (Luria, 1980, p. 263). The frontal
lobes provide for the programming, regulation,
and evaluation of behavior and enable the child to
ask questions, develop strategies, and self-moni-
tor (Luria, 1973). Other responsibilities of the
third functional unit include the regulation of vol-
untary activity, conscious impulse control, and
various linguistic skills such as spontaneous con-
versation. The third functional unit provides the
most complex aspects of human behavior, includ-
ing personality and consciousness (Das, 1980). A
reciprocal relationship exists between the first
and third functional units. The higher cortical
systems both regulate and work in collaboration
with the first functional unit while also receiving
and processing information from the external
world and determining an individual’s dynamic
activity (Luria, 1973). This unit is also influenced
by the regulatory effects of the cortex. Ascending
and descending systems of the reticular forma-
tion enable this relationship by transmitting
impulses from lower parts of the brain to the cor-
tex and vice versa. Thus, damage to the prefron-
tal area can alter this reciprocal relationship so
that the brain may not be sufficiently aroused for
complex behaviors requiring sustained attention.
In 2009, Goldberg described a breakdown in any
portion of this complex, loop-like interaction
between the prefrontal ventral brain stem and
posterior cortex as producing systems of atten-
tion deficit. Castellanos et al. (2001) further
hypothesize that the right prefrontal cortex and
organs at the basal ganglia such as the substantia
nigra and the cerebellum form a critical set of
connections he described as “brain’s braking sys-
tem.” These interconnections innervate and come
1 Introduction: A History of Executive Functioning…
online when inhibition, attention, and self-regu-
lation are required.
The connection between units also links the
psychological processes that are routed in each
of the functional units. For PASS theory this
means that the psychological processes of atten-
tion and planning are necessarily strongly related
because planning often has conscious control of
attention. In other words, one’s limited atten-
tional resources are dictated by the plan for one’s
behavior. The combination of attention and plan-
ning offer a functional description of executive
function. However, attention and other PASS
processes are influenced by many variables
beyond planning. One of the influences is the
environment. Novel encounters within daily life
demand that individuals act in one way or
another. The interaction of knowledge and sev-
eral PASS processes are involved as individuals
make judgments about similarities and differ-
ences between past situations and present
demands, while estimating possible outcomes of
action, even as acting. Humans are uniquely the
only species capable of simultaneously thinking,
evaluating, and acting. As Bromhill (2004) notes
humans are able to think one thing while saying
and or doing something else.
Luria’s organization of the brain into func-
tional units was not an attempt to map out the
precise locations with specific areas of higher
cognition taking place. In fact, Luria believed no
part of the brain works by itself; thus, no cogni-
tive task solely requires simultaneous, succes-
sive planning or attention processing, or any
other processes, but rather it is a matter of
emphasis. Luria stated “perception of memoriz-
ing gnosis and praxis, speech and thinking, writ-
ing, reading and arithmetic cannot be regarded
as isolated or even indivisible faculties” (Luria,
1973, p. 29). Thus, an attempt to identify a fixed
cortical location for any complex behavior
would be considered a mistaken endeavor.
Instead the brain should be conceptualized as a
functioning whole composed of units that pro-
vide purpose.
11
Conclusion
Over the last 150 years, significant and critical
advancements have been made in our understand-
ing of the manner in which the brain regulates,
manages, organizes, and helps organisms inter-
face with their environment. It has now been well
documented that to function effectively the brain
requires an executive system. This EF system
controls and manages other systems, abilities,
and processes. Prefrontal areas of the frontal
lobes primarily carry out this operation. These are
parts of the brain that from an evolutionary per-
spective are more recently evolved. Thus, it is not
surprising that human beings possess a complex
EF system. Future research will continue to
define, understand, and develop strategic and
clinical strategies and interventions to facilitate
the development and operation of the EF system.
References
Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working memory. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Baddeley, A., Sala, S. D., & Robbins, T. W. (1996).
Working memory and executive control. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B,
Biological Sciences, 351(1346), 1378–1388.
Banich, M. T. (2009). Executive function: The search for
an integrated account. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 18, 89–94.
Barkley, R. A. (2011a). Executive functioning and self-
regulation: Integration, extended phenotype, and clin-
ical implications. New York: Guilford Press.
Barkley, R. A. (2011b). Barkley Deficits in Executive
Functioning Scale (BDEFS) manual. New York:
Guilford.
Broadbent, D. E. (1958). Perception and communication.
London: Pergamon.
Bromhill, C. (2004). The eternal child. Sydney, Australia:
Edbury Press.
Castellanos, F. X., Giedd, J. N., Berquin, P. C., Walter, J.
M., Sharp, W., Tran, T., et al. (2001). Quantitative
brain magnetic resonance imaging in girls with
Attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Archives of
General Psychiatry, 58, 289–295.
Castellanos, F. X., Lee, P. P., Sharp, W., Jeffries, N. O.,
Greenstein, D. K., Clasen, L. S., et al. (2003).
12
Developmental trajectories of brain volume abnormal-
ities in children and adolescents with attention deficit/
hyperactivity disorder. Journal of the American
Medical Association, 288, 1740–1748.
Checa, P., Rodriguez-Bailon, R., & Rueda, M. R. (2008).
Neurocognitive and temperamental systems of early
self-regulation and early adolescents’ social and aca-
demic outcomes. Mind Brain and Education, 2,
177–187.
Das, J. P., Naglieri, J. A., & Kirby, J. R. (1994). Assessment
of cognitive processes. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn
& Bacon.
Driver, J. (2001). A selective review of selective attention
research from the past century. British Journal of
Psychology, 92, 53–78.
Fuster, J. M. (2000). Executive frontal functions.
Experimental Brain Research, 133, 66–70.
Kolb, B., & Whishaw, I. Q. (2009). Fundamentals of human
neuropsychology (6th ed.). New York: Freeman-Worth.
Lewandowski, L., Lovett, B., Gordon, M., & Codding, R.
(2008). Symptoms of ADHD and academic concerns
in college students with and without ADHD diagno-
ses. Journal of Attention Disorders, 12, 156–161.
Luria, A. R. (1963). Restoration of function after brain
injury. New York: Pergamon Press.
Luria, A. R. (1966). Human brain and psychological pro-
cesses. New York: Harper and Row Publishers.
Luria, A. R. (1973). The working brain. New York: Basic
Books.
Luria, A. R. (1980). Higher cortical functions in man (2nd
ed.). New York: Basic Books.
McCloskey, G., Perkins, L. A., & Van Divner, B. (2009).
Assessment and intervention for executive function
difficulties. School-based practice in action series.
New York: Routledge.
S. Goldstein et al.
Naglieri, J., Das, J. P., & Goldstein, S. (2013). Cognitive
assessment system—II rating scale examiner’s man-
ual. Austin, TX: PRO-ED Publishers.
Naglieri, J., & Goldstein, S. (2013). Comprehensive exec-
utive functioning inventory technical manual. Toronto,
Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
Posner, M. I., & Snyder, C. R. R. (1975). Attention and
cognitive control. In R. Solso (Ed.), Information pro-
cessing and cognition: The Loyola symposium (pp.
55–85). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ratiu, P., & Talos, I. F. (2004). Images in clinical medi-
cine: The tale of Phineas Gage. New England Journal
of Medicine, 351(23), e21.
Reynolds, C. R., & Horton, A. M. (2006). Test of ver-
bal conceptualization and fluency. Austin, TX:
Pro-Ed.
Rueda, M. R., Posner, M. I., & Rothbart, M. K. (2004).
Attentional control and self-regulation. In R. F.
Baumeister & K. D. Vohs (Eds.), Handbook of self-
regulation: Research, theory, and applications (pp.
283–300). New York: Guilford Press.
Schiffrin, R. M., & Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and
automatic human information processing: Perceptual
learning, automatic attending and a general theory.
Psychological Review, 84(2), 127–190.
Shallice, T. (1988). From neuropsychology to mental
structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shallice, T. (2002). Fractionation of the supervisory sys-
tem. In D. T. Stuss & R. T. Knight (Eds.), Principles of
frontal lobe function (pp. 261–277). New York:
Oxford University Press.
Shifrin, R. M., & Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and
automatic human information processing: Perceptual
learning, automatic attending and general theory.
Psychological Review, 84, 127–190.