This article was downloaded by: [Universidad de Malaga]

On: 12 February 2011

Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 778576649]
Publisher Psychology Press
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-
41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713657736

A multiperspective approach to the conceptualization of executive

functions
Sonia Packwooda; Helen M. Hodgettsab; Sébastien Tremblaya
a
School of Psychology, Université Laval, Quebec, QC, Canada b School of Psychology, Cardiff
University, Cardiff, UK

First published on: 24 January 2011

To cite this Article Packwood, Sonia , Hodgetts, Helen M. and Tremblay, Sébastien(2011) 'A multiperspective approach to
the conceptualization of executive functions', Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology,, First published on:
24 January 2011 (iFirst)
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/13803395.2010.533157
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13803395.2010.533157

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 JOURNAL OF CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL NEUROPSYCHOLOGY
2010, iFirst, 1–15

A multiperspective approach to the conceptualization

of executive functions
Sonia Packwood,1 Helen M. Hodgetts,1,2 and Sébastien Tremblay1
1
School of Psychology, Université Laval, Quebec, QC, Canada
2
School of Psychology, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK

The concept of executive function (EF) is deemed unclear and difficult to operationalize. We use a multiperspective
approach to quantify and reduce the current proliferation of EFs. A literature review of 60 studies identified 68 sub-
components of EF: Through objective statistical techniques, these terms were reduced to 18 by removing semantic
overlap (using latent semantic analysis) and psychometric overlap (using hierarchical cluster analysis). However,
Downloaded By: [Universidad de Malaga] At: 19:46 12 February 2011

still such a large number of functions lacks parsimony. We therefore revisit the concept of EF and suggest that the
many proposed subcomponents are not functions per se but rather a number of task-specific behaviors.

Keywords: Executive function; Latent semantic analysis; Hierarchical cluster analysis; Neuropsychological assess-
ment; Cognitive processes.

Executive functions (EFs) are generally recognized as
cognitive control mechanisms that direct and coordinate
human behavior in an adaptive way when no preestab-
lished schema of action is available (e.g., Lezak, 1995;
Shallice, 1988). Despite the general acceptance that such
high-level functions play a role in cognition, there is
no consensus as to what these functions are, how they
might be organized, or which specific test should be
used in the assessment of each one. Abundant research,
together with the wide use of EF concepts and execu-
tive tests in clinical neuropsychology, has contributed to
an extensive list of EFs including such functions as goal
formation, planning, set shifting, verbal fluency, and inhi-
bition. Indeed the lack of a formal definition of EFs may
have led to some overlap and redundancy in the number
of terms used, but even attempts to gain a more coher-
ent structure through factorial analysis have failed to find
any consistency across studies in the type or number of
functions involved (e.g., Fisk & Sharp, 2004; Huizinga,
Dolan, & van der Molen, 2006; Miyake et al., 2000).
The diversity of taxonomies and general absence of con-
sensus have led to a proliferation of EFs. Since science
is guided by the principle of parsimony—whereby only
the minimum of elementary causes is used to explain a
phenomenon—it would seem reasonable to seek greater
unity within the field (Banich, 2009; Uttal, 2001). The
current paper uses a multiperspective approach to first
quantify the extent of the proliferation and then to esti-
mate the extent to which EF subcomponents overlap both
conceptually and psychometrically. This meta-analysis
will provide an objective portrayal of the current state
of affairs with regard to EF and aims towards a clearer
understanding of the concept.
Some of the earliest models to incorporate the idea of
a higher order management system proposed a unitary
mechanism responsible for all processes involving atten-
tional control (Baddeley & Hitch, 1974; Grafman, 1989;
Norman & Shallice, 1986; Pribram, 1960). However,
this view of a single executive entity—often referred
to as the homunculus—has been criticized for lacking

Helen M. Hodgetts is an honorary research fellow at School of Psychology, Cardiff University. This research was supported by an
operating grant to Sébastien Tremblay and a graduate scholarship to Sonia Packwood from the Natural Sciences and Engineering
Research Council of Canada (NSERC). Part of this work was presented at the International Congress of Psychology, Berlin, Germany
(July, 2008). We would like to thank Daniel Lafond and Jean-François Gagnon for their significant help and suggestions with regard to
the ideas proposed in this paper. We would also like to thank Cindy Chamberland for comments on an earlier draft and to Marie-Josée
Côte for assistance with the analysis.
Address correspondence to Sonia Packwood or Sébastien Tremblay, École de Psychologie, Université Laval, Québec, G1V 0A6,
Canada (E-mail: sonia.packwood.1@ulaval.ca or sebastien.tremblay@psy.ulaval.ca).
© 2011 Psychology Press, an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business
http://www.psypress.com/jcen DOI: 10.1080/13803395.2010.533157
 2 PACKWOOD, HODGETTS, TREMBLAY
specificity, leading subsequent research efforts to focus
on decomposing the proposed “black box” into more
informative subcomponents (see Baddeley, 1996; Shallice,
2002). Much of this work has relied upon patients with
frontal lobe damage, for whom the higher level control
abilities associated with EF—broadly the coordination,
execution, and regulation of behaviors—are noticeably
impaired. That patients deficient in these everyday func-
tions tend to have damage to the same area indicates
a common mechanism, but the pattern of performance
deficits between patients and across tasks is not uniform
and instead seems to support the existence of multiple
dissociable executive skills. Despite copious research, the
complex nature of neuropsychological impairment means
that it is difficult to determine precisely how many funda-
mentally distinct executive abilities there are (see Andrés,
2003). Different models have suggested that the func-
tions of the frontal lobe can be divided into three (Fuster,
1980), four (Baddeley, 1996; Luria, 1973), or five sub-
Downloaded By: [Universidad de Malaga] At: 19:46 12 February 2011
components (Shallice & Burgess, 1991; Stuss & Benson,
1986), and more recent factor analyses have produced
similarly inconsistent results with models proposing up
to six EFs (e.g., Fisk & Sharp, 2004; Floyd, Bergeron, &
Hamilton, 2004; Huizinga et al., 2006). Disagreement
about the taxonomies of EF extends beyond just the num-
ber, to also the critical roles proposed for each; although
there are some commonalities, it seems that there is no
one subcomponent that is shared by all models (see
Fournier-Vicente, Larigauderie, & Gaonac’h, 2008; Hull,
Martin, Beier, Lane, & Hamilton, 2008; Miyake et al.,
2000). Jurado and Rosselli (2007) reported a review of 11
papers published between 1974 and 2004 that identifies
more than 30 executive subcomponents. In sum, the cur-
rent fractionation of the central executive is unclear and
perhaps of little more help than the original black box
itself (see Banich, 2009; Logan, 2003).
As well as inconsistency regarding the core structure of
the central executive, the numerous terms used to describe
often seemingly similar functions further obfuscate the
concept of EF. In a large number of studies over the last
two decades or so, factorial analysis has been a privileged
tool in the attempt to gain a more coherent structure of
EF; however, due to different researchers’ opinions on the
processes underlying performance on different tasks, the
results of such studies may even compound the problem
of proliferation by providing labels for factors that vary
from one author to another (Séguin & Zelazo, 2005). For
example, it is difficult to see how the factor of “visual pro-
cessing” in one factor analysis (Floyd et al., 2004) could
be considered conceptually distinct from that of “visu-
ospatial storage-and-processing coordination” in another
(Fournier-Vicente et al., 2008). Until researchers become
more uniform in their terminology, it will be difficult to
compare between studies and to identify core, separable
underlying functions.
The problem of proliferation is further exacerbated
by the variety of tasks available to measure different
facets of EF. With no formal definitions, clinicians tend
to use their own labels to express the functions that a
neuropsychological task measures (Royall et al., 2002);
furthermore, with the development of various new tasks
there follows an increasing number of terms to describe
the potential processes tapped by each. Generally, any
test sensitive to frontal lobe damage is deemed to assess
“executive” processes, and some of those more com-
monly used include the Tower of Hanoi (TOH) or
Tower of London (TOL), verbal fluency, Stroop, and
the Wisconsin Card Sorting task (WCST). A problem of
task impurity means that each task may assess a num-
ber of different executive subcomponents and/or non-EF
cognitive processes as well; as such, it can be very dif-
ficult to know how impairment on a particular task
should be interpreted. For example, verbal fluency can
be described as a measure of fluency capacities (Baldo,
Shimamura, Delis, Kramer, & Kaplan, 2001), memory
retrieval (Rosen & Engle, 1997), set shifting (Troyer,
Moscovitch, & Winocur, 1997), or inhibition (Brosnan
et al., 2002). Similarly, the Stroop task is mostly con-
sidered a measure of inhibitory function (Miyake et al.,
2000) but is also used to evaluate working memory (Kane
& Engle, 2003), cognitive flexibility (Zalonis et al., 2009),
impulse control (Peterson et al., 1999), selective atten-
tion (Melcher & Gruber, 2006), concentration (Van Diest,
Stegen, Van de Woestijne, Schippers, & Van den Bergh,
2000), and so on. Undoubtedly the range of tasks avail-
able, as well as the lack of specificity regarding what each
task does and does not measure, has contributed to the
multiplicity of terms.
The ambiguity surrounding the concept of EF is a
problem for clinical diagnosis such that the more tax-
onomies we have, the less clear the executive profile is
for each given disorder. For example, while theories sug-
gest that EFs are at the heart of the difficulties associated
with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD),
five recent studies show inconsistent executive profiles
especially with regard to inhibition, verbal fluency, and
planning deficits (e.g., Boonstra, Oosterlaan, Sergeant,
& Buitelaar, 2005; Geurts, Verté, Oosterlaan, Roeyers, &
Sergeant, 2005; Marzocchi et al., 2008; Pasini, Paloscia,
Alessandrelli, Porfirio, & Curatolo, 2007; Willcutt, Doyle,
Nigg, Faraone, & Pennington, 2005). Given the plethora
of executive tasks, it is perhaps not surprising that a
patient’s performance can differ between various tasks
that purport to measure the same thing and also between
patients who have similar diagnoses (Andrés, 2003).
Greater unity in the field of EFs will be critical to
understanding the underlying basis of neuropsycholog-
ical impairment. Neuropsychologists should be able to
discriminate between each EF (deficits of planning, inhi-
bition, fluency, etc) in order to provide accurate diagnosis
and treatment. A major consequence of the wide variety
of subcomponents of EF is that the profile of neu-
ropathology is hard to determine with certainty, and so
diagnoses and treatment may lack specificity and unifor-
mity between clinicians.
The current paper aims to quantify the extent of the
proliferation that we are faced with and to seek some
coherence within the literature with regard to definitions
and the tasks used to measure each EF. Our multiper-
spective approach uses three phases: a targeted review
of the literature, latent semantic analysis (LSA), and
hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA). The literature review,

for which we select a large number of well-cited articles,
will reveal an estimate of the number of tasks and the
number of different terms used in the field. LSA is a novel
application of an approach borrowed from social sciences
and the study of language: Given that there may be over-
lap and redundancy with regard to some terms obtained
in the review, it provides a first filter to guard against an
overestimation by combining semantically similar items.
HCA will then be used to reduce the number of EFs
still further: Those individual subcomponents that are
measured using the same types of tasks will be grouped
together, since these are likely to involve the same mecha-
nisms and thus represent the same underlying function.
HCA is a well-established method of data exploration
used in various fields such as social sciences, archeol-
ogy, and biology to cluster together common themes, but,
to our knowledge, it has never before been applied to
the concept of EF. Our novel three-phase methodology
will provide an objective estimate of the multiplicity of
Downloaded By: [Universidad de Malaga] At: 19:46 12 February 2011
terms and employs specific techniques to identify com-
monalities between studies and thus reduce the number
of terms used.
GENERAL METHOD
Literature review
The purpose of this systematic review was to synthesize
prior research regarding the number of EFs in current
use, as well as the executive tasks frequently used in
their assessment. To this end, we performed a search on
the Web of Science database, one of the largest available
databases, for published papers from 1970 up until 2007
with the following terms: “executive function,” “executive
functioning,” or “frontal function.” This returned 1,443
articles, but in order to ensure high quality we selected
60 highly cited articles for this targeted review. Studies
were identified that focused on the assessment of at least
one EF with specific executive tasks, and which had been
frequently cited given the time since publication (range
of citations was between 10 and 1,235). Of course older
papers had a greater opportunity for more citations to
accumulate, but we considered a minimum of 10 citations
to be an appropriate threshold so that recently published
articles were not biased against. The 60 papers selected
involved a broad range of studies, including those using
children, adults, and elderly people, and could be con-
sidered representative of the literature on how EFs are
generally conceptualized and measured. Each different
EF mentioned in these articles was recorded, as well as
the task(s) used to measure them (see Table 1).
Latent semantic analysis
LSA was used as a first method to estimate the strength of
the semantic link between the different definitions of EFs
identified in the review. LSA is a mathematical/statistical
technique for extracting and representing words and
passages similar in meaning by analyzing large bodies
CONCEPTUALIZATION OF EXECUTIVE FUNCTIONS 3
of text (Landauer & Dumais, 1997; Landauer, Foltz, &
Laham, 1998). It takes into account the redundancy
between definitions associated with each subcomponent
and enables the grouping of those that are similarly
defined. The computer program uses singular value
decomposition, a general form of factor analysis, to con-
dense a very large matrix of word-by-context data accord-
ing to 300–500 dimensions. These dimensions represent
how often a word occurs within a document (defined at
the sentence level, the paragraph level, or in larger sec-
tions of texts), and each word, sentence, or text becomes
a weighted vector. LSA takes into account the tracking
of words that are semantically similar, but may not be
related morphologically—for example, the word mouse
has a higher LSA score when compared to cat than
when compared to either dog or house. Those items that
are strongly connected are grouped together to avoid
an overestimation of the proliferation, thus leaving only
those terms that are considered conceptually distinct. The
similarity between the resulting vectors for words and
contexts, as measured by the cosine of their contained
angle, has shown to closely mimic human judgments of
meaning similarity. For example, after practicing with
about 2,000 pages of English text, the program scored
as well as the average test-takers of the synonym por-
tion of the Educational Testing Service’s Test of English
as a Foreign Language (TOEFL; Landauer & Dumais,
1997), and after training on an introductory psychology
textbook it achieved a passing score on a multiple-choice
exam (Landauer et al., 1998).
In order to be entered into the program, each term
needed a definition. Given that a number of terms were
not specifically defined by the authors, the missing defini-
tions were replaced by those offered by the online Webster
dictionary (Parker, 2009), recognized as one of the widest
dictionaries of modern language usage. This corresponds
to the equivalent of 500 encyclopedias and was thus
chosen for its impressive bank of available terminolo-
gies. Examples of definitions provided by the dictionary
include perseveration as the inability to switch; creativity
as constructing a novelty without constituent compo-
nents; abstraction as the process of formulating general
concepts by abstracting common properties of instances;
and problem-solving as a learning situation involving
more than one alternative from which a selection is made.
A matrix comparison was used to compare the similar-
ity of multiple definitions within a particular LSA space,
where the LSA space is defined as “a semantic space rep-
resenting a mathematical representation of a large body
of text” (Landauer et al., 1998). This space contained the
text from three college level psychology textbooks with
each paragraph used as a document, totaling 13,902 doc-
uments and 30,119 unique terms. Each definition was
compared to all other definitions. The LSA system com-
puted a similarity score between –1 and 1 for each sub-
mitted definition compared to all submitted definitions.
Identical passages in meaning were given cosines of 1,
unrelated ones, 0, and those of opposite meaning, –1.
Definitions of subcomponents of EF that were strongly
semantically connected (i.e., cosine ≥ .5) were grouped
together.
 4 PACKWOOD, HODGETTS, TREMBLAY

TABLE 1
References of the literature review

Authors Year Authors Year

Ahola, K., Vi lkki, J., & Se rvo, A. 1 99 6 Kempton, S., Vance, A., Maruff, P., Luk, E., 1999
Costin, J., & Pantelis, C.
Anderson, P. 2002
Kerr, A., & Zelazo, P. D. 2004
Anderson, V. 1998
Klenberg, L., Korkman, M., & Lahti-Nuuttila, P. 2001
Anderson, V., Anderson, P., Northam, E., 2001
Jacobs, R., & Catroppa, C. Klimkeit, E. I., Mattingley, J. B., Sheppard, D. M., 2004
Farrow, M., & Bradshaw, J. L.
Austin, M. P., Mitchell, P., Wilhelm, K., 1999
Parker, G., Hickie, I., Brodaty, H., et al. Lafleche, G., & Albert, M. S. 19 9 5

Baddeley, A., DellaSala, S., Papagno, C., & Spinnler, H. 1997 Lehto, J. 1996

Barnett, R., Maruff, P., Vance, A., Luk, E. S. L., 2001 Lehto, J. E., Juujärvi, P., Kooistra, L., & 2003
Costin, J., Wood, C., & Pantelis, C. Pulkkinen, L.

Belleville, S., Rouleau, N., & Van der Linden, M. 2006 Levin, H. S., Culhane, K. A., Hartmann, J., 1991
Evankovich, K., Mattson, A. J., Harward, H.,
Brocki, K. C., & Bohlin, G. 2004 et al.
Brosnan, M., Demetre, J., Hamill, S., Robson, K., 2002 Lopez, B. R., Lincoln, A. J., Ozonoff, S., & Lai, Z. 2005
Downloaded By: [Universidad de Malaga] At: 19:46 12 February 2011

Shepherd, H., & Cody, G.

Lovejoy, D. W., Ball, J. D., Keats, M., Stutts, M. L., 1999
Bryan, J. & Luszcz, M. A. 2000 Spain, E. H., Janda, L., & Janusz, J.
Burgess, P. W., Alderman, N., Evans, J., 1998 McPherson, S., Fairbanks, L., Tiken, S., 2002
Emslie, H., & Wilson, B. A. Cummings, J. L., & Back-Madruga, C.
Burgess, P.W., & Shallice, T. 1 99 6 Mattson, S. N., Goodman, A. M., Caine, C., 1999
Busch, R. M., McBride, A., Curtiss, G., & 2005 Delis, D. C., & Riley, E. P.
Vanderploeg, R. D. Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., 2000
Channon, S., & Green, P. S. S. 1999 Witzki, A. H., Howerter, A., & Wager, T. D.
Coppin, A. K., Shumway-Cook, A., Saczynski, J. S., 2006 Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Rettinger, D. A., 2001
Patel, K. V., Ble, A., Ferrucci, L., & Guralnik, J. M. Shah, P., & Hegarty, P.
De Luca, C. R., Wood, S. J., Anderson, V., 2003 Moritz, S., Birkner, C., Kloss, M., Jahn, H., 2002
Buchanan, J. A., Proffitt, T. M., Mahony, K., & Hand, I., Haasen, C., & Krausz, M.
Pantelis, C. Murphy, K. R., Barkley, R. A., & Bush, T. 2001
Denney, D. R., Sworowski, L. A., & Lynch, S. G. 2005 Nigg, J. T., Stavro, G., Ettenhofer, M., 2005
Doyle, A. E., Wilens, T. E., Kwon, A., 2005 Hambrick, D. Z., Miller, T., & Henderson, J. M.
Seidman, L. J., Faraone, S. V., Fried, R., et al. Ozonoff, S., & Jensen, J. 1999
Duncan, J., Johnson, R., Swales, M., & Freer, C. 1997 Perret, E. 1974
Espy, K. A., Kaufmann, P. M., McDiarmid, M. D., & 1999 Purcell, R., Maruff, P., Kyrios, M., & Pantelis, C. 1998
Glisky, M. L.
Robbins, T. W., James, M., Owen, A. M., 1998
Fisher, N., & Happé, F. 2005 Sahakian, B. J., Lawrence, A. D., McInnes, L., &
Foong, J., Rozewicz, L., Quaghebeur, G., 1997 Rabbitt, P. M. A.
Davie, C. A., Kartsounis, L. D., Thompson, A. J., Rowe, A. D., Bullock, P. R., Polkey, C. E., & 2001
et al. Morris, R. G.
Fossati, P., Amar, G., Raoux, N., Ergis, A. M., 1999 Salthouse, T. A., Atkinson, T. M., & Berish, D. E. 2003
& Allilaire, J. F.
Scheres, A., Oosterlaan, J., Geurts, H., 2004
Fucetola, R., Seidman, L. J., Kremen, W. S., 2000 Morein-Zamir, S., Meiran, N., Schut, H., et al.
Faraone, S. V., Goldstein, J. M., & Tsuang, M. T.
Schoechlin, C., & Engel, R. R. 2005
Garavan, H., Ross, T. J., Li, S. J., & Stein, E. A. 2000
Sergeant, J. A., Geurts, H., & Oosterlaan, J. 2002
Geurts, H. M., Verté, S., Oosterlaan, J., 2004
Roeyers, H., Hartman, C. A., Mulder, E. J., et al. S ha l l ic e, T . 19 8 2

Greene, J. D. W., Hodges, J. R., & Baddeley, A. D. 1995 Shallice, T., & Burgess, P. 1 99 1

Hughes, C., Leboyer, M., & Bouvard, M. 1997 Welsh, M. C., Pennington, B. F., & Groisser, D. B. 1991

Hutton, S. B., Puri, B. K., Duncan, L. J., 1998 Willcutt, E. G., Doyle, A. E., Nigg, J. T., 2005
Robbins, T. W., Barnes, T. R. E., & Joyce, E. M. Faraone, S. V., & Pennington, B. F.

See the Appendix for the full references.


Hierarchical cluster analysis
HCA is a statistical procedure that tries to identify clus-
ters of relatively homogeneous variables based on selected
characteristics, in this case identifying the subcompo-
nents of EF according to the neuropsychological tasks
with which they are measured. The analysis was per-
formed with SPSS Version 16.0 using an agglomerative
algorithm that starts with each variable in a separate
cluster and combines them until there is finally only
one (Finch, 2005). A binary measure of pattern dis-
tance was used on the dichotomous data, whereby every
variable is compared with every other in order to deter-
mine distance based on response pattern similarity. Those
with the smallest cluster-to-cluster distance at each stage
were combined. Items were clustered according to Ward’s
method because it minimizes the variance between clus-
ters at each step ensuring that they are as distinct as
possible (see Ward, 1963).
Downloaded By: [Universidad de Malaga] At: 19:46 12 February 2011
HCA is useful to establish a pattern regarding which
tasks are used more often than others when measuring
particular EFs and to determine the level of agreement
between authors. We postulate that two subcomponents
consistently measured with the same tasks would not
be functionally distinct and would therefore meet in the
same cluster of the analysis. These two subcomponents
would require similar cognitive mechanisms and thus rep-
resent the same underlying function. In other words, by
establishing the similarity between the different EFs in
terms of the tests with which they are measured, the HCA
helps to estimate the proximity between each EF, cluster-
ing together those that are closest and thus reducing the
overall number of individual functions. It tries to deter-
mine a set of tasks that would allow us to distinguish one
cluster of EFs from another and helps to find a recurring
pattern of tasks that would be used mostly to measure a
particular group of subcomponents.
RESULTS
In our review of 60 of the most frequently cited studies,
68 different terms for EFs were identified as well as 98
tasks used to assess them. We extracted only the precise
terms used by authors, and in some cases it seemed that a
number of different labels were being used for what might
essentially be a single EF—for example, inhibition, inter-
ference control, mental control, and control of response
all appear to be very similar. LSA is a way to objectively
quantify this overlap, reducing the number of terms to
only those that are conceptually distinct.
The result of the LSA suggests the presence of 50
EFs rather than 68. Eighteen terms were thus included
with one of the 50 remaining EFs because they were
strongly semantically connected (cosine ≥ .5). For exam-
ple, the terms set shifting, selective attention, attention
shifting, attentional control, and cue-directed attention
were reduced simply to set shifting. In each case, the most
common term was used, and the others were absorbed
by it. Figure 1 represents the five most common terms in
rectangles: Planning was assessed in 48% of the studies,
CONCEPTUALIZATION OF EXECUTIVE FUNCTIONS 5
working memory in 42%, set shifting in 32%, inhibition
in 42%, and fluency in 27%. Those taxonomies subsumed
by these umbrella terms are connected by solid lines
(cosine ≥ .5). Items linked by dotted lines are less strongly
associated (cosine .3–.5), and the 12 subcomponents rep-
resented by numbered circles are those that the LSA did
not link semantically to any other term (cosine < .3).
This final grouping constitutes a better estimate of the
proliferation of EFs because it takes into account asso-
ciations between their definitions. This analysis allows us
not only to determine the EFs that should be grouped
together but also to estimate the proximity between each
of them. Table 2 provides a summary of the results
regarding which 50 components were retained, and which
18 were sufficiently semantically related to be subsumed
by a more common term.
An overlap remains, however, especially with regard to
the tasks used to measure EFs. If the same subcompo-
nents are consistently measured by the same sets of tasks,
then we might assume that these are not separate func-
tions after all, but rather individual labels provided by
various researchers for the same EF. HCA was employed
to reduce the number of EFs further, by progressively
grouping together subcomponents according to similar-
ity in the tasks with which they are measured. Unlike
factor analysis that looks at individual differences in
task performance, this novel approach is based upon
the similarities/differences in authors’ opinions regard-
ing what is thought to be measured by a particular task.
It assesses whether a given task is used more frequently
than another to measure a specific function, and so a pat-
tern emerges regarding which tasks are associated with
particular EFs. Thus if Task A is most frequently used
to measure Function X but is also used to measure
Functions Y and Z, we might infer that these func-
tions must also be associated—for example, according
to the literature review the Tower of Hanoi is mainly
used to measure planning, but can also be used to
measure organization and problem solving; therefore all
three functions are associated and are combined in the
same cluster.
Not all the data could be entered into the cluster analy-
sis because 18 of the 50 EFs were idiosyncratic and listed
only once; that is, they were not measured by a test com-
mon to any other EF and so could not be assigned to a
cluster. Had these 18 EFs been included, the number of
separate clusters would have been artificially increased.
Table 2 indicates which EFs were eliminated at this stage
(e.g., intentionality, creativity, complex integration, self-
regulation), leaving just 32 EFs to be entered into the
HCA. Figure 2 shows the full dendrogram from the anal-
ysis. Items are combined at each level until the clusters
are increasingly coarse-grained, and there is finally only
one. If we look just at the first level of clustering, which
is the most conservative, the 32 EFs have been reduced to
18. Of course, we could look at later stages of the anal-
ysis to reduce the number of terms still further, but we
prefer to remain cautious rather than to suggest combin-
ing items at too high a level. The tasks used to measure
the subcomponents of each of these clusters are shown
in Table 3. From an initial set of 68 EFs we are left
 6 PACKWOOD, HODGETTS, TREMBLAY

central
executive
develop a execute a concentration
plan plan
goal
activation setting
and monitoring
goals goal management controlling carry out a
of actions sequence of actions

divided
1 planning attention
motor planning sequencing 2
efficiency to retrieve
executive words from memory
motor skills executive STM
memory capacity

working
memory
temporal coding
organization complex 3
integration
resist to
distraction information
perseveration
processing
set shifting
self-monitoring
6 selective attention
4 5
self-generative
Downloaded By: [Universidad de Malaga] At: 19:46 12 February 2011

behavior cognitive
sustained
flexibility
self-regulation shift attention/vigilance
inhibition of attention
response 7
suppression attentionnal control
response 8
generation
use of 9
impulsivity strategies
control of interference cue-directed
response control attention
response
modulation
10
word
programming 11 generation
fluency
attentionnal set
conceptuali- formation
mental control zation
12
concept maintain
formation set
spontaneous
verbal efficiency verbal formation
reasoning flexibility of
abstraction thinking
1. Workload 7. Generation of strategy
2. Creativity 8. Proneness to interference
3. Theoryofmind 9. Discoveringchangesinrules problem
4. Visual search 10. Affective decision making solving
5. Time sharing 11. Verification of hypothesis
6. Intentionality 12. Initiation

Figure 1. Strength of the semantic link between definitions of executive functions (EFs) according to the latent semantic analysis (LSA).
EFs represented in rectangles are the most frequently postulated in the literature review. EFs are connected by a full line (cosine of .5 or
more), connected by a dotted line (cosine between .3 and .5), or are unconnected (cosine less than .3). Note: The 12 items in the legend
correspond to the 12 items associated with the 12 circles. To view a color version of this figure, please see the online issue of the Journal.

with 18; this is quite a considerable reduction, although revealed 68 different terms and a set of 98 executive
such a large number of functions is still lacking in tasks. The sheer number of tasks and labels to describe
parsimony. EFs clearly shows the inconsistency in the literature and
illustrates the need for a more coherent approach. The
number of terms was reduced to 50 with LSA and to
DISCUSSION 18 following the HCA (or 36 if we consider the idiosyn-
cratic terms that were eliminated from this analysis), but
The concept of EF has been criticized for its lack of clar- even after three filters this still seems too large a num-
ity and profusion of terms (e.g., Andrés, 2003; Jurado & ber to suggest that the problem has been adequately
Rosselli, 2007; Miyake et al. 2000), and in the current arti- resolved. There are too many abilities, definitions, and
cle we aimed to both quantify and reduce the proposed tasks to provide any meaningful taxonomy; continuing in
number of executive subcomponents. A multiperspective this manner will not be helpful in clarifying the notion of
methodology was used that incorporated three filters: EF, and as such we suggest that the concept is revisited.
a targeted review of the literature incorporating highly The results of the literature review demonstrate the
cited EF articles, LSA, and HCA. The literature review extent of the problem with regard to EF; since clinicians
 CONCEPTUALIZATION OF EXECUTIVE FUNCTIONS 7

TABLE 2
Results of the LSA: EFs retained and EFs eliminated after the analysis

EFs retained after the LSA EFs eliminated after the LSA (and terms subsumed under)

1. planning 1. goal management (planning)

2. inhibition 2. interference control (inhibition)
3. working memory (WM) 3. control of response (inhibition)
4. set shifting 4. mental control (inhibition)
5. fluency 5. efficiency to retrieve words from memory (WM)
6. cognitive flexibility 6. temporal coding (WM)
7. impulsivity 7. selective attention (set shifting)
8. sustained attention 8. shift of attention (set shifting)
9. goal setting 9. attentional control (set shifting)
10. perseveration 10. cue-directed attention (set shifting)
11. organization 11. attentional set formation (maintain set)
12. concept formation 12. response modulation (fluency)
13. initiation 13. response generation (fluency)
14. problem solving 14. response suppression (fluency)
15. generation of strategy 15. executive motor skills (motor planning)
16. executive memory 16. self-monitoring (self generative behavior)
17. resist to distraction 17. spontaneous verbal formation (verbal efficiency)
Downloaded By: [Universidad de Malaga] At: 19:46 12 February 2011

18. sequencing 18. carry out a sequence of actions (concentration)

19. reasoning
20. maintain set
21. information processing
22.a divided attention
23. use of strategies
24. conceptualization
25.a short-term memory
26. visual search
27. central executive
28.a proneness to interference
29.a motor planning
30. develop a plan
31. execute a plan
32.a verification of hypothesis
33.a discovering changes in categorizing rules
34.a word generation
35. self-generative behavior
36. controlling of actions
37. verbal efficiency
38.a intentionality
39.a programming
40.a flexibility of thinking
41.a creativity
42. concentration
43.a complex integration
44.a activation and monitoring goals
45.a time sharing
46.a decision making
47.a workload
48.a theory of mind
49.a self-regulation
50. abstraction

Note. LSA = latent semantic analysis. EF = executive function. A total of 50 EFs were retained after the LSA,
and 18 EFs were eliminated. a The executive functions that were excluded from the hierarchical cluster analysis
(HCA).

often use their own terminologies based on what they
consider a task to measure, semantically overlapping
and superfluous labels are increasingly created. LSA and
HCA are two novel approaches in the area of EF—one
based on semantics and the other on psychometrics—
that have proven useful in our attempt to gain more
coherence amongst the multiplicity of terms. LSA and
HCA combine those subcomponents that do not share
the same label but that are defined and/or measured in
the same way across different authors. LSA provides an
innovative method to reduce the number of EFs, allowing
us to quantify the overlap at the abstract level by offering
 8 PACKWOOD, HODGETTS, TREMBLAY

Rescaled Distance Cluster Combine

0 5 10 15 20 25
Executive Functions

Working Memory
Concentration
Strategy Generation
Conceptualization
Maintain Set
Executive Memory
Goal Setting
Central Executive
Impulsivity
Initiation
Inhibition
Visual Search
Sustained Attention
Resist Distraction
Problem Solving
Controlling Actions
Downloaded By: [Universidad de Malaga] At: 19:46 12 February 2011

Develop Plan
Execute Plan
Planning g
Organization
Use Strategies
Self Monitoring
Set Shifting
Cognitive Flexibility
Concept Formation
Abstraction
Fluency
Verbal Efficiency
Sequencing
Information Processing
Perseveration
Reasoning

Figure 2. Dendrogram of the cluster analysis using Ward’s method. From the left side of the figure, the first nodes represent the
18 clusters of the hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA) reduced from the initial set of 32 executive functions (EFs).

a grouping of EFs based on definitions. Although intu-
itively we may consider that two descriptions in the liter-
ature are equivalent and that one can be subsumed by the
other, this method allows us to make that decision objec-
tively. We identified which of any corresponding terms
was the most frequently used by authors and now make
the recommendation that these most common terminolo-
gies become more uniform in the field of EF (see Table 2
for the most frequent terms highlighted in our review and
those more idiosyncratic terms that could be subsumed).
A greater transparency in the labeling of subcomponents
will better facilitate comparison between studies in this
conceptually complex area.
HCA reduced the number of functions still further
by grouping together those that were strongly associ-
ated in terms of the tasks used. If two subcomponents
are consistently measured by the same types of task,
we might infer that different labels have simply evolved
for the same EF; after all, it would seem reasonable
to assume that those measured by the same tasks rely
upon the same mechanisms and therefore tap a common
underlying function. Based on semantic and psychome-
tric overlap we have reduced the number of terms to
18, or 36 if we also consider those idiosyncratic terms
that were excluded from the HCA. However, to regard
each of these as separate functions would be unparsimo-
nious given their number and also the lack of any clear
operationalization: Those terms deemed separate by the
LSA and HCA are not necessarily completely indepen-
dent of one another, just associated to a lesser degree than
those terms that the analyses combined together. Since
the 18 (or 36) EFs derived from the analyses cannot be
said to each represent a clear functional subcomponent,
it would be difficult to incorporate these into a mean-
ingful or parsimonious theory of executive functioning.
We therefore consider another viewpoint whereby the dif-
ferent subcomponents identified do not reflect separate
functions per se, but rather task-specific manifestations
of behaviors. Such an explanation allows for the many
variations in executive task performance highlighted in
our review, but without the need to suggest that these are
each functionally distinct components.
 CONCEPTUALIZATION OF EXECUTIVE FUNCTIONS 9

TABLE 3
EFs and executive tasks included in each of the 18 clusters according to the HCA

1.1 Working memory/efficiency to retrieve words from memory/temporal coding

1.2 Concentration/carry out a sequence of actions
Stroop, SOPT, verbal and nonverbal fluency tasks, WCST, TOL, TMT, Delis sorting test, spatial span, digit span, CVLT,
cognitive estimates test, auditory attention and response set, Porteus mazes, delayed alternation, visual search test, A not B
task, self-ordered searching task.
2.1 Generation of strategy
2.2 Conceptualization
2.3 Maintain set/attentional set formation
Verbal and nonverbal fluency tasks, WCST, SOPT, similarities subtest, visual discrimination task.
3.1 Executive memory
Verbal and non verbal fluency tasks, CVLT, MCST.
4.1 Goal setting
4.2 Central executive
TOL, spatial learning task, verbal and nonverbal fluency tasks, cognitive estimates test.
5.1 Impulsivity
Verbal and nonverbal fluency tasks, Stroop, TOL, WCST, selective reaching task, spatial puzzle, statue.
6.1 Initiation
Verbal and nonverbal fluency tasks, COWAT, Delis sorting test, cognitive effort test, Hayling, cognitive estimates test, spatial
Downloaded By: [Universidad de Malaga] At: 19:46 12 February 2011

puzzle, list learning task.

7.1 Inhibition/interference control /control of response/mental control
7.2 Visual search
7.3 Sustained attention or vigilance
Matching familiar figures, selective reaching task, CPT, verbal and nonverbal fluency tasks, Stroop, WCST, TOL, SOPT, TMT,
six element test, go/no go task, digit span, Hayling, arithmetic subtest, cognitive estimates test, statue, change task, A not B
task, group-embedded figures test.
8.1 Resist to distraction
Stroop, digit span, arithmetic subtest.
9.1 Problem solving
9.2 Controlling of actions
WCST, TOL, TOH, 20 questions, delayed alternation.
10.1 Develop a plan
10.2 Execute a plan
10.3 Planning/goal management
TOL, TOH, WCST, TMT, cognitive effort test, selective reaching task, CFR, Porteus mazes.
11.1 Organization
TOL, COWAT, TOH, SOPT, six element test, CVLT, CFR, Porteus mazes.
12.1 Use of strategies
12.2 Self-generative behavior/self-monitoring
12.3 Set shifting/selective attention/shift of attention/attentional control/cue-directed attention
Verbal and nonverbal fluency tasks, WCST, COWAT, TMT, self-ordered searching task, Stroop, digit span, selective reaching
task, auditory attention and response set, MCST, CNT, ID/ED, visual search test.
13.1 Cognitive flexibility
Verbal and nonverbal fluency tasks, Stroop, WCST, COWAT, TMT, Delis sorting test, digit span, CNT, ID/ED, change task,
group-embedded figures test.
14.1 Concept formation
WCST, COWAT, CVLT, similarities subtest, California word context, 20 questions.
15.1 Abstraction
WCST, COWAT, Delis sorting test, 20 questions, MCST.
16.1 Fluency/response suppression/response modulation/response generation/control of response
16.2 Verbal efficiency/spontaneous verbal formation
Stroop, COWAT, WCST, TMT, object usage test, go/no go task, Hayling.
17.1 Sequencing
17.2 Information processing
COWAT, SOPT, TMT, spatial span.
18.1 Perseveration
18.2 Reasoning
WCST, TMT, verbal and nonverbal fluency tasks, COWAT, list learning task, California word context.

Note. Executive tasks in italics are most frequently postulated to measure the EFs that are within that cluster. EF = execu-
tive function. HCA = hierarchical cluster analysis. SOPT = Self-Ordered Pointing Task; WCST = Wisconsin Card Sorting Test;
TOL = Tower of London; TMT = Trail Making Test; CVLT = California Verbal Learning Test; MCST = Modified Card
Sorting Test; COWAT = Controlled Oral Word Association Test; CPT = Continuous Performance Test; TOH = Tower of Hanoi;
CNT = Contingency Naming Task; ID/ED = Intradimensional/Extradimensional; CFR = Complex Figure of Rey.
 10 PACKWOOD, HODGETTS, TREMBLAY
Although EFs are generally considered the managers
of all decision-making processes, some models in cogni-
tive psychology suggest that fundamental processes like
memory and attention instead govern the choice of which
behavior to adopt in a given situation (see Goldman-
Rakic, 1987; Kimberg & Farah, 1993). If complex deci-
sion making is controlled by just a few key functions,
then the numerous EFs that clinicians refer to might sim-
ply be different behaviors that result from the interaction
between these fundamental processes when performing
different tasks. Similar tasks or situations would generate
similar behaviors because the decision-making process
that one goes through in each case would be almost the
same; for example, tasks that require the inhibition of
a usual behavior are grouped together in the HCA, but
inhibition is not necessarily a function, it could simply
be the manifestation of the interaction between key pro-
cesses that are required to make a decision (see MacLeod,
Dodd, Sheard, Wilson, & Bibi, 2003). Evidence from neu-
Downloaded By: [Universidad de Malaga] At: 19:46 12 February 2011
roimaging suggests that such key functions (e.g., memory
and attention) could be located in the cortex and that
although specific areas might be responsible for a spe-
cific type of information processing (e.g., either visual
or auditory), it is the interaction of multiple parts of
the cortex that are necessary to make a complex deci-
sion or to solve a novel problem (see Smith & Jonides,
1999). Undoubtedly if we consider the numerous sub-
components as examples of executive behaviors rather
than as executive functions, then this would represent a
more parsimonious approach.
Neuroimaging studies indicate that the activity of
many neurons in the prefrontal cortex—the centre of
executive functioning—is task dependent (Asaad, Rainer,
& Miller, 2000); however, although a particular task may
activate a new set of neurons, one should not make the
erroneous assumption that this is then tapping into a new
function. In basic research rather than clinical studies, the
way to operationalize concepts is quite different: Two dif-
ferent tasks or paradigms might activate different sets of
neurons but can still be considered to elicit the same cog-
nitive function. For example, the attentional blink and
the psychological refractory period (PRP) are two differ-
ent paradigms, but both are assumed to perform similar
cognitive operations (Jolicoeur, Dell’Acqua, & Crebolder,
1998). That is, it is clear from other areas of psychol-
ogy that a number of similar but distinct paradigms can
converge upon the same fundamental cognitive function.
Research efforts to identify and characterize various
isolated functions only serve to further obfuscate the con-
cept of EF; rather, EF could be defined as a system
responsible for the acquisition of task context and the
implementation of rules used to guide behavior, regard-
less of the specific behaviors or response required by
a given task (e.g., inhibition of a prepotent response,
set shifting). Such a definition would shift our opera-
tionalization of EF closer to the concept of the g factor
of intelligence, for which the same kind of debate has
occurred (see Duncan, 2010; Stiers, Mennes, & Sunaert,
2010). As Duncan and Owen (2000) state in their review,
although there must be an increase in the local special-
ization of a function as the scale of analysis approaches
the single neuron, many of the same specific regions of
the frontal lobe are activated by multiple kinds of cog-
nitive demands. Like the g factor, the concept of EF
has increased in interest due to its predictive success
for many real-world activities, yet by concentrating our
work on isolated operations such as response inhibition,
we may have lost sight of the key reason why the con-
cept of EF was originally developed: to illustrate how
humans address adaptive behavior. Such adaptive behav-
ior usually implies complex sequential programming of
goal-directed behaviors, and thus it seems illogical to
reduce this holistic concept to a multitude of isolated
functions. Indeed, it is unlikely that deficits of com-
plex behaviors can be captured by isolating operations
(e.g., response inhibition), when many different kinds of
problem-solving situations require complex and multi-
component behavior (Duncan, 2010).
Carpenter, Just, and Reichle (2000) also subscribe
to this view, proposing that cognitive processes arise
from networks across multiple cortical sites with inter-
active and overlapping functions; as such, each possible
interaction could generate a different pattern of actions
or behaviors depending on the task in hand, the spe-
cific situation, or even the cognitive skills that a person
has developed within a particular culture: “the variety
and generativity of human cognition, like the variation
observed in other complex adaptive systems, arises from
the combinatorics of simpler elements” (Carpenter et al.,
2000, p. 197). Thus the interaction of a number of fac-
tors can give rise to a multitude of possible behaviors,
and this explanation may go some way towards under-
standing why we can observe so many executive deficits
yet the existence of such a large number of separate, spe-
cialized executive functions seems implausible (see Uttal,
2001).
A good example of a more parsimonious approach
is the model of Shallice and Burgess (1996): Instead of
describing executive functioning with a multitude of sub-
components, the authors describe three general stages
that one must go through when facing a new or com-
plex situation (construction of temporary new schema;
implementation of temporary new schema; assessment
and verification). The output of the model is a behav-
ior that emerges from these three general principles. If
we consider all the EFs identified in the literature review
as being examples of different outputs—or as behaviors
deriving from a few basic underlying functions—then this
model would seem to be in keeping with our viewpoint of
a more parsimonious representation. One further model
to provide an explanation as to how executive control can
operate as a unitary function without resorting to a mul-
titude of separate EFs is the cascade model, based on
functional imaging studies (see Koechlin & Summerfield,
2007). According to this model, executive functioning
does not comprise individual subcomponents but rather
chosen actions are dependent upon different contexts;
thus, there are as many possible actions as there are
contexts in which an individual can be placed (or, to
relate to our current argument, there may be as many
possible executive behaviors as there are different exec-
utive tasks to perform). The anterior portion of the

prefrontal cortex is thought to support the selection of
actions in multitasking contexts, whereby the individual
must keep in mind relevant information for a future task
whilst currently engaging in another. This component is
referred to in the model as branching control and may
account for a number of proposed EFs across differ-
ent contexts that require the maintenance and constant
updating of information whilst performing multiple tasks
(e.g., planning, inhibition, working memory, cognitive
flexibility).
Limitations and future directions
The novel approaches of LSA and HCA offer a useful
perspective within the complex field of EF, but are not of
course without their limitations. The LSA is constrained
by the specific semantic space available—in the case of
psychology, the only semantic space available was that
Downloaded By: [Universidad de Malaga] At: 19:46 12 February 2011
of college-level text books. Ideally, an LSA space relat-
ing more specifically to EF could be useful, but given that
the definitions used were fairly simple, we believe that this
was adequate for our analysis to give an initial idea of the
semantic overlap. The output does show some surprises,
however; for example, some EFs that one may consider to
be highly related were not combined in the analysis. This
is because the semantic link between two EFs strongly
depends on the specific definition used, and so it is pos-
sible that some associations may have been missed, thus
slightly underestimating the number of terms that could
otherwise have been combined. We acknowledge that this
is a limitation of this analysis; however, we felt that using
this approach based on objective definitions was better
than adopting more lenient criteria whereby more items
could have been combined on the basis of author opin-
ion. A further point is that we used a high cutoff point
in order to ensure that the EFs grouped together after
the LSA were exclusively those that were strongly seman-
tically linked (cosine ≥ .5). Thus, EFs like attentional
control and interference control that were reasonably well
associated (cosine = .26) were not grouped together in the
analysis. Our conservative criteria for objectively combin-
ing items would explain why some seemingly similar EFs
are not related in this analysis, which could be considered
an initial first step at reducing the number of terms.
The HCA allowed us to determine the extent of agree-
ment between authors regarding which EF a specific task
is thought to measure. For some tasks there appears to
be a high level of agreement, such as the Continuous
Performance Test (CPT), which features in only one clus-
ter (i.e., inhibition, visual search, and sustained attention)
and so is closely tied to the measurement of one specific
function. On the other hand, the WCST appears in two
thirds of clusters in the HCA (12 of 18), thus illustrat-
ing problems we have in the current EF literature: (a) the
lack of agreement between authors concerning what EF
is measured by a task, and/or (b) the use of this task to
assess many EFs at a time. Clearly, these problems make
any performance deficit on such a task difficult to inter-
pret, and the HCA highlights which tasks may be most
problematic in this regard.
CONCEPTUALIZATION OF EXECUTIVE FUNCTIONS 11
One might argue that some of the tasks included in the
HCA were not originally developed or validated as “exec-
utive measures”—for example, tasks like Stroop and Trail
B were first recognized as sensitive measures to differenti-
ate between patients with or without brain injury (Davids,
Goldenberg, & Laufer, 1957; Houston, 1969). However,
they are now commonly used in the field by researchers
and neuropsychologists alike (see Miyake et al., 2000),
and patients’ performance on these tasks is used to make
clinical diagnoses regarding their capacity for executive
functioning and independent living. Although these tasks
might not have been developed directly from the current
executive semantic space, they are certainly widely used to
refer to this concept. Since our paper is a representation
of the measures and terms currently used in the litera-
ture, these tasks are still deemed relevant in our present
conceptualization of EF.
The 60 papers used in the literature review were fre-
quently cited so give a good indication of the current state
of play in the cognitive and neuropsychological literature
with regard to the conceptualization and measurement of
EFs. As a future avenue of research it would perhaps be
interesting to compare this review to one that includes
articles from another research area such as neuroimaging,
as this would allow us to compare the extent to which the
operationalization of EFs is comparable across different
domains.
In the current paper our contribution is threefold: We
have quantified the extent of the problem with regard to
EF; we demonstrate the use of novel methods to objec-
tively reduce the number of terms based on semantic
and psychometric overlap; and we have suggested a need
to revisit the concept of EF. Although researchers may
agree that the concept of EF is difficult to operational-
ize, this paper is critical in highlighting just how difficult
this problem has become. If researchers continue in the
same manner—creating new executive tasks and using
new labels for functions that these tasks may measure—it
will eventually become impossible to make any mean-
ingful comparisons between studies and to understand
one clinician’s diagnosis relative to another’s. One of the
main goals of this study was to stress the theoretical and
psychometric inconsistency in this field. It is important
for both cognitive psychology and clinical practice that
we make a concerted effort now to move towards greater
coherence and uniformity regarding these constructs. We
recommend that more standardized rather than idiosyn-
cratic terms be established within the literature, perhaps
adopting those most frequent terms highlighted by the
LSA. Furthermore, this paper emphasizes the need to
revise our view of EFs so that content is not con-
founded by form; that various types of behaviors/deficits
exhibited through the performance measures of different
executive tasks are just that—the expression of different
executive behaviors—and not necessarily a reflection of
multiple separate executive “functions.”
Original manuscript received 9 November 2009
Revised manuscript accepted 10 September 2010
First published online day month year
 12 PACKWOOD, HODGETTS, TREMBLAY
REFERENCES
Andrés, P. (2003). Frontal cortex as the central executive of
working memory: Time to revise our view. Cortex, 39,
871–895.
Asaad, W. F., Rainer, G., & Miller, E. K. (2000). Task-specific
neural activity in the primate prefrontal cortex. Journal of
Neurophysiology, 84, 451–459.
Baddeley, A. D. (1996). Exploring the central executive.
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49A, 5–28.
Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. In G. A.
Bower (Ed.), Recent advances in learning and motivation (Vol.
8, pp. 47–90). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Baldo, J. V., Shimamura, A. P., Delis, D. C., Kramer, J., &
Kaplan, E. (2001). Verbal and design fluency in patients
with frontal lobe lesions. Journal of the International
Neuropsychological Society, 7, 586–596.
Banich, M. T. (2009). Executive function: The search for an inte-
grated account. Current Directions in Psychological Science,
18, 89–94.
Boonstra, A. M., Oosterlaan, J., Sergeant, J. A., & Buitelaar,
J. K. (2005). Executive functioning in adult ADHD: A meta-
Downloaded By: [Universidad de Malaga] At: 19:46 12 February 2011
analytic review. Psychological Medicine, 35, 1097–1108.
Brosnan, M., Demetre, J., Hamill, S., Robson, K., Shepherd,
H., & Cody, G. (2002). Executive functioning in adults and
children with developmental dyslexia. Neuropsychologia, 40,
2144–2155.
Carpenter, P. A., Just, M. A., & Reichle, E. D. (2000). Working
memory and executive function: Evidence from neuroimag-
ing. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 10, 195–199.
Davids, A., Goldenberg, L., & Laufer, M. W. (1957). The rela-
tion of the Archimedes spiral aftereffect and the trail mak-
ing test to brain-damage in children. Journal of Consulting
Psychology, 21, 429–433.
Duncan, J. (2010). The multiple-demand (MD) system of the
primate brain: Mental programs for intelligent behaviour.
Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14, 172–179.
Duncan, J., & Owen, A. M. (2000). Common regions of the
human frontal lobe recruited by diverse cognitive demands.
Trends in Neurosciences, 23, 475–483.
Finch, H. (2005). Comparison of distance measures in cluster
analysis with dichotomous data. Journal of Data Science, 3,
85–100.
Fisk, J. E., & Sharp, C. A. (2004). Age-related impair-
ment in executive functioning: Updating, inhibition, shift-
ing, and access. Journal of Clinical and Experimental
Neuropsychology, 26, 874–890.
Floyd, R. G., Bergeron, R., & Hamilton, G. (2004, August).
Joint exploratory factor analysis of the Delis–Kaplan execu-
tive function system and the Woodcock–Johnson III tests of
cognitive abilities. Poster presented at the Annual Meeting of
the American Psychological Association, Honolulu, HI.
Fournier-Vicente, S., Larigauderie, P., & Gaonac’h, D. (2008).
More dissociations and interactions within central executive
functioning: A comprehensive latent-variable analysis. Acta
Psychologica, 129, 32–48.
Fuster, J. M. (1980). The prefrontal cortex: Anatomy, physiol-
ogy and neuropsychology of the frontal lobe. New York, NY:
Raven.
Geurts, H. M., Verté, S., Oosterlaan, J., Roeyers, H., &
Sergeant, J. A. (2005). ADHD subtypes: Do they differ
in their executive functioning profile? Archives of Clinical
Neuropsychology, 20, 457–477.
Goldman-Rakic, P. (1987). Circuitry of primate prefrontal
cortex and regulation of behaviour by representational
knowledge. In F. Plum & V. Mountcastle (Eds.), Handbook
of physiology (pp. 373–417). Bethesda, MD: American
Physiological Society.
Grafman, J. (1989). Plans, actions, and mental sets: Managerial
knowledge units in the frontal lobes. In E. Perecman (Ed.),
Integrating theory and practice in clinical neuropsychology
(pp. 93–138). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Houston, B. K. (1969). Noise, task difficulty, and Stroop color-
word performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 82,
403–404.
Huizinga, M., Dolan, C. V., & van der Molen, M. W. (2006).
Age-related change in executive function: Developmental
trends and a latent variable analysis. Neuropsychologia, 44,
2017–2036.
Hull, R., Martin, R. C., Beier, M. E., Lane, D., & Hamilton,
A. C. (2008). Executive function in older adults: A struc-
tural equation modeling approach. Neuropsychology, 22,
508–522.
Jolicoeur, P., Dell’Acqua, R., & Crebolder, J. (1998).
Multitasking performance deficits: Forging links between the
attentional blink and the psychological refractory period.
In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Control and cognitive
processes: Attention and Performance XVIII (pp. 309–330).
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jurado, M. B., & Rosselli, M. (2007). The elusive nature of
executive functions: A review of our current understanding.
Neuropsychological Review, 17, 213–233.
Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W. (2003). Working-memory capac-
ity and the control of attention: The contributions of goal
neglect, response competition, and task set to Stroop inter-
ference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132,
47–70.
Kimberg, D. Y., & Farah, M. J. (1993). A unified account of cog-
nitive impairments following frontal lobe damage: The role
of working memory in complex organized behaviour. Journal
of Experimental Psychology: General, 122, 411–428.
Koechlin, E., & Summerfield, C. (2007). An information theo-
retical approach to prefrontal executive function. Trends in
Cognitive Sciences, 11, 229–235.
Landauer, T. K., & Dumais, S. T. (1997). A solution to
Plato’s problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of the
acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge.
Psychological Review, 104, 211–240.
Landauer, T. K., Foltz, P. W., & Laham, D. (1998).
Introduction to latent semantic analysis. Discourse
Processes, 25, 259–284. Retrieved August 30, 2009, from
http://www.pearsonkt.com/papers/IntroLSA1998.pdf
Lezak, M. D. (1995). Neuropsychological assessment (3rd ed.).
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Logan, G. D. (2003). Executive control of thought and action:
In search of the wild homunculus. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 12, 45–48.
Luria, A. R. (1973). The working brain. New York, NY: Basic
Books.
MacLeod, C. M., Dodd, M. D., Sheard, E. D., Wilson, D. E., &
Bibi, U. (2003). In opposition to inhibition. The psychology
of learning and motivation, 43, 163–214.
Marzocchi, G. M., Oosterlaan, J., Zuddas, A., Cavolina, P.,
Geurts, H., Redigolo, D., et al. (2008). Contrasting deficits
on executive functions between ADHD and reading disabled
children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49,
543–552.
Melcher, T., & Gruber, O. (2006). Oddball and incongruity
effects during Stroop task performance: A comparative
fMRI study on selective attention. Brain Research, 1121,
136–149.
Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H.,
Howerter, A., & Wager, T. D. (2000). The unity and diver-
sity of executive functions and their contributions to complex
frontal lobes tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cognitive
Psychology, 41, 49–100.
Norman, D. A., & Shallice, T. (1986). Attention to action: Willed
and automatic control of behaviour. In G. E. Schwartz &
D. Shapiro (Eds.), Consciousness and self-regulation (Vol. 4).
New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Parker, P. M. (2009). Webster’s online dictionary with multi-
lingual thesaurus translation. Retrieved May 5, 2009, from
http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org
Pasini, A., Paloscia, C., Alessandrelli, R., Porfirio, M. C., &
Curatolo, P. (2007). Attention and executive functions profile

in drug naïve ADHD subtypes. Brain & Development, 29,
400–408.
Peterson, B. S., Skudlarski, P., Gatenby, J. C., Zhang, H. P.,
Anderson, A. W., & Gore, J. C. (1999). An fMRI study of
Stroop word-color interference: Evidence for cingulate sub-
regions subserving multiple distributed attentional systems.
Biological Psychiatry, 45, 1237–1258.
Pribram, K. H. (1960). A review of theory in physiological-
psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 11, 1–40.
Rosen, V. M., & Engle, R. W. (1997). The role of working mem-
ory capacity in retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
General, 126, 211–227.
Royall, D. R., Lauterbach, E. C., Cummings, J. L., Reeve, A.,
Rummans, T. A., Kaufer, D. I., et al. (2002). Executive con-
trol function: A review of its promise and challenges for
clinical research. A report from the Committee on Research
of the American Neuropsychiatric Association. Journal of
Neuropsychiatry & Clinical Neurosciences, 14, 377–405.
Séguin, J. R., & Zelazo, P. D. (2005). Executive function in
early physical aggression. In R. E. Tremblay, W. W. Hartup,
& J. Archer (Eds.), Developmental origins of aggression
(pp. 307–329). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Shallice, T. (1988). From neuropsychology to mental structure.
Downloaded By: [Universidad de Malaga] At: 19:46 12 February 2011
New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Shallice, T. (2002). Fractionation of the supervisory system. In
D. T. Stuss & R. T. Knight (Eds.), Principles of frontal lobe
function (pp. 261–277). Oxford, UK: University Press.
Shallice, T., & Burgess, P. (1991). Deficits in strategy application
following frontal lobe damage in man. Brain, 114, 727–741.
Shallice, T., & Burgess, P. (1996). The domain of supervi-
sory processes and temporal organization of behaviour.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London,
351, 1405–1411.
APPENDIX
References cited in Table 1
Ahola, K., Vilkki, J., & Servo, A. (1996). Frontal tests do
not detect frontal infarctions after ruptured intracranial
aneurysm. Brain and Cognition, 31, 1–16.
Anderson, P. (2002). Assessment and development of executive
function (EF) during childhood. Child Neuropsychology, 8,
71–82.
Anderson, V. (1998). Assessing executive functions in children:
Biological, psychological, and developmental considerations.
Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 8, 319–349.
Anderson, V., Anderson, P., Northam, E., Jacobs, R., &
Catroppa, C. (2001). Development of executive functions
through late childhood and adolescence in an Australian
sample. Developmental Neuropsychology, 20, 385–406.
Austin, M. P., Mitchell, P., Wilhelm, K., Parker, G., Hickie, I.,
Brodaty, H., et al. (1999). Cognitive function in depression:
A distinct pattern of frontal impairment in melancholia?
Psychological Medicine, 29, 73–85.
Baddeley, A., Della Sala, S., Papagno, C., & Spinnler, H. (1997).
Dual-task performance in dysexecutive and nondysexecutive
patients with a frontal lesion. Neuropsychology, 11, 187–194.
Barnett, R., Maruff, P., Vance, A., Luk, E. S. L., Costin, J.,
Wood, C., & Pantelis, C. (2001). Abnormal executive func-
tion in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: The effect of
stimulant medication and age on spatial working memory.
Psychological Medicine, 31, 1107–1115.
Belleville, S., Rouleau, N., & Van der Linden, M. (2006). Use
of the Hayling task to measure inhibition of prepotent
responses in normal aging and Alzheimer’s disease. Brain and
Cognition, 62, 113–119.
Brocki, K. C., & Bohlin, G. (2004). Executive functions in chil-
dren aged 6 to 13: A dimensional and developmental study.
Developmental Neuropsychology, 26, 571–593.
CONCEPTUALIZATION OF EXECUTIVE FUNCTIONS 13
Smith, E. E., & Jonides, J. (1999). Storage and executive pro-
cesses in the frontal lobes. Science, 283, 1657–1661.
Stiers, P., Mennes, M., & Sunaert, S. (2010). Distributed
task coding throughout the multiple demand network
of the human frontal-insular cortex. NeuroImage, 52,
252–262.
Stuss, D. T., & Benson, D. F. (1986). The frontal lobes. New York,
NY: Raven Press.
Troyer, A. K., Moscovitch, M., & Winocur, G. (1997).
Clustering and switching as two components of verbal flu-
ency: Evidence from younger and older healthy adults.
Neuropsychology, 11, 138–146.
Uttal, W. R. (2001). The new phrenology: The limits of localizing
cognitive processes in the brain. Cambridge, MA: The MIT
Press.
Van Diest, I., Stegen, K., Van de Woestijne, K. P., Schippers, N.,
& Van den Bergh, O. (2000). Hyperventilation and attention:
Effects of hypocapnia on performance in a Stroop task.
Biological Psychology, 53, 233–252.
Ward, J. (1963). Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective
function. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 58,
236–244.
Willcutt, E. G., Doyle, A. E., Nigg, J. T., Faraone, S.
V., & Pennington, B. F. (2005). Validity of the execu-
tive function theory of attention-deficit/hyperactivity dis-
order: A meta-analytic review. Biological Psychiatry, 57,
1336–1346.
Zalonis, I., Christidi, F., Bonakis, A., Kararizou, E.,
Triantafyllou, N. I., Paraskevas, G., et al. (2009). The
Stroop effect in Greek healthy population: Normative data
for the Stroop neuropsychological screening test. Archives of
Clinical Neuropsychology, 24, 81–88.
Brosnan, M., Demetre, J., Hamill, S., Robson, K., Shepherd,
H., & Cody, G. (2002). Executive functioning in adults and
children with developmental dyslexia. Neuropsychologia, 40,
2144–2155.
Bryan, J., & Luszcz, M. A. (2000). Measurement of executive
function: Considerations for detecting adult age differences.
Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 22,
40–55.
Burgess, P. W., Alderman, N., Evans, J., Emslie, H., & Wilson, B.
A. (1998). The ecological validity of tests of executive func-
tion. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society,
4, 547–558.
Burgess, P. W., & Shallice, T. (1996). Response suppression,
initiation and strategy use following frontal lobe lesions.
Neuropsychologia, 34, 263–272.
Busch, R. M., McBride, A., Curtiss, G., & Vanderploeg, R.
D. (2005). The components of executive functioning in
traumatic brain injury. Journal of Clinical and Experimental
Neuropsychology, 27, 1022–1032.
Channon, S., & Green, P. S. S. (1999). Executive function
in depression: The role of performance strategies in aid-
ing depressed and non-depressed participants. Journal of
Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 66, 162–171.
Coppin, A. K., Shumway-Cook, A., Saczynski, J. S., Patel, K. V.,
Ble, A., Ferrucci, L., & Guralnik, J. M. (2006). Association
of executive function and performance of dual-task physical
tests among older adults: Analyses from the InChianti study.
Age and Ageing, 35, 619–624.
De Luca, C. R., Wood, S. J., Anderson, V., Buchanan, J. A.,
Proffitt, T. M., Mahony, K., & Pantelis, C. (2003). Normative
data from the CANTAB: I. Development of executive func-
tion over the lifespan. Journal of Clinical and Experimental
Neuropsychology, 25, 242–254.
 14 PACKWOOD, HODGETTS, TREMBLAY
Denney, D. R., Sworowski, L. A., & Lynch, S. G. (2005).
Cognitive impairment in three subtypes of multiple sclerosis.
Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 20, 967–981.
Doyle, A. E., Wilens, T. E., Kwon, A., Seidman, L. J., Faraone, S.
V., Fried, R., et al. (2005). Neuropsychological functioning in
youth with bipolar disorder. Biological Psychiatry, 58, 540–
548.
Duncan, J., Johnson, R., Swales, M., & Freer, C. (1997). Frontal
lobe deficits after head injury: Unity and diversity of func-
tion. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 14, 713–741.
Espy, K. A., Kaufmann, P. M., McDiarmid, M. D., & Glisky,
M. L. (1999). Executive functioning in preschool children:
Performance on A-not-B and other delayed response format
tasks. Brain and Cognition, 41, 178–199.
Fisher, N., & Happé, F. (2005). A training study of theory
of mind and executive function in children with autistic
spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental
Disorders, 35, 757–771.
Foong, J., Rozewicz, L., Quaghebeur, G., Davie, C. A.,
Kartsounis, L. D., Thompson, A. J., et al. (1997). Executive
function in multiple sclerosis: The role of frontal lobe pathol-
ogy. Brain, 120, 15–26.
Fossati, P., Amar, G., Raoux, N., Ergis, A. M., & Allilaire,
Downloaded By: [Universidad de Malaga] At: 19:46 12 February 2011
J. F. (1999). Executive functioning and verbal memory in
young patients with unipolar depression and schizophrenia.
Psychiatry Research, 89, 171–187.
Fucetola, R., Seidman, L. J., Kremen, W. S., Faraone, S. V.,
Goldstein, J. M., & Tsuang, M. T. (2000). Age and neu-
ropsychologic function in schizophrenia: A decline in exec-
utive abilities beyond that observed in healthy volunteers.
Biological Psychiatry, 48, 137–146.
Fuster, J. M. (1980). The prefrontal cortex: Anatomy, physiol-
ogy and neuropsychology of the frontal lobe. New York, NY:
Raven.
Garavan, H., Ross, T. J., Li, S. J., & Stein, E. A. (2000). A
parametric manipulation of central executive functioning.
Cerebral Cortex, 10, 585–592.
Geurts, H. M., Verté, S., Oosterlaan, J., Roeyers, H., Hartman,
C. A., Mulder, E. J., et al. (2004). Can the Children’s
Communication Checklist differentiate between children
with autism, children with ADHD, and normal controls?
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 1437–1453.
Greene, J. D. W., Hodges, J. R., & Baddeley, A. D.
(1995). Autobiographical memory and executive function
in early dementia of Alzheimer type. Neuropsychologia, 33,
1647–1670.
Houston, B. K. (1969). Noise, task difficulty, and Stroop color-
word performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 82,
403–404.
Hughes, C., Leboyer, M., & Bouvard, M. (1997). Executive
function in parents of children with autism. Psychological
Medicine, 27, 209–220.
Hutton, S. B., Puri, B. K., Duncan, L. J., Robbins, T. W., Barnes,
T. R. E., & Joyce, E. M. (1998). Executive function in first-
episode schizophrenia. Psychological Medicine, 28, 463–473.
Kempton, S., Vance, A., Maruff, P., Luk, E., Costin, J., &
Pantelis, C. (1999). Executive function and attention deficit
hyperactivity disorder: Stimulant medication and better
executive function performance in children. Psychological
Medicine, 29, 527–538.
Kerr, A., & Zelazo, P. D. (2004). Development of “hot” executive
function: The children’s gambling task. Brain and Cognition,
55, 148–157.
Klenberg, L., Korkman, M., & Lahti-Nuuttila, P. (2001).
Differential development of attention and executive func-
tions in 3- to 12-year-old Finnish children. Developmental
Neuropsychology, 20, 407–428.
Klimkeit, E. I., Mattingley, J. B., Sheppard, D. M., Farrow, M.,
& Bradshaw, J. L. (2004). Examining the development of
attention and executive functions in children with a novel
paradigm. Child Neuropsychology, 10, 201–211.
Lafleche, G., & Albert, M. S. (1995). Executive function deficits
in mild Alzheimer’s disease. Neuropsychology, 9, 313–320.
Lehto, J. (1996). Are executive function tests dependent on work-
ing memory capacity? Quarterly Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 49A, 29–50.
Lehto, J. E., Juujärvi, P., Kooistra, L., & Pulkkinen, L. (2003).
Dimensions of executive functioning: Evidence from chil-
dren. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 21, 59–80.
Levin, H. S., Culhane, K. A., Hartmann, J., Evankovich, K.,
Mattson, A. J., Harward, H., et al. (1991). Developmental
changes in performance on tests of purported frontal
lobe functioning. Developmental Neuropsychology, 7,
377–395.
Lopez, B. R., Lincoln, A. J., Ozonoff, S., & Lai, Z. (2005).
Examining the relationship between executive functions and
restricted, repetitive symptoms of autistic disorder. Journal
of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 35, 445–460.
Lovejoy, D. W., Ball, J. D., Keats, M., Stutts, M. L., Spain,
E. H., Janda, L., & Janusz, J. (1999). Neuropsychological
performance of adults with attention deficit hyperac-
tivity disorder (ADHD): Diagnostic classification esti-
mates for measures of frontal lobe/executive functioning.
Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 5,
222–233.
Mattson, S., Goodman, A., Caine, C., Delis, D., & Riley, E.
(1999). Executive functioning in children with heavy prena-
tal alcohol exposure. Alcoholism, Clinical and Experimental
Research, 23, 1808–1815.
McPherson, S., Fairbanks, L., Tiken, S., Cummings, J. L.,
& Back-Madruga, C. (2002). Apathy and executive func-
tion in Alzheimer’s disease. Journal of the International
Neuropsychological Society, 8, 373–381.
Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H.,
Howerter, A., & Wager, T. D. (2000). The unity and diversity
of executive functions and their contributions to complex
frontal lobes tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cognitive
Psychology, 41, 49–100.
Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Rettinger, D. A., Shah, P., &
Hegarty, P. (2001). How are visuospatial working mem-
ory, executive functioning, and spatial abilities related? A
latent variable analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
General, 130, 621–640.
Moritz, S., Birkner, C., Kloss, M., Jahn, H., Hand, I., Haasen,
C., & Krausz, M. (2002). Executive functioning in obsessive-
compulsive disorder, unipolar depression, and schizophre-
nia. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 17, 477–483.
Murphy, K. R., Barkley, R. A., & Bush, T. (2001). Executive
functioning and olfactory identification in young adults with
attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder. Neuropsychology, 15,
211–220.
Nigg, J. T., Stavro, G., Ettenhofer, M., Hambrick, D. Z., Miller,
T., & Henderson, J. M. (2005). Executive functions and
ADHD in adults: Evidence for selective effects on ADHD
symptom domains. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 114,
706–717.
Ozonoff, S., & Jensen, J. (1999). Brief report: Specific execu-
tive function profiles in three neurodevelopmental disorders.
Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 29, 171–177.
Perret, E. (1974). Left frontal lobe of man and suppres-
sion of habitual responses in verbal categorical behavior.
Neuropsychologia, 12, 323–330.
Purcell, R., Maruff, P., Kyrios, M., & Pantelis, C. (1998).
Cognitive deficits in obsessive compulsive disorder on tests of
frontal-striatal function. Biological Psychiatry, 43, 348–357.
Robbins, T. W., James, M., Owen, A. M., Sahakian, B. J.,
Lawrence, A. D., McInnes, L., & Rabbitt, P. M. A. (1998).
A study of performance on tests from the CANTAB bat-
tery sensitive to frontal lobe dysfunction in a large sample
of normal volunteers: Implications for theories of executive
functioning and cognitive aging. Journal of the International
Neuropsychological Society, 4, 474–490.
Rowe, A. D., Bullock, P. R., Polkey, C. E., & Morris, R. G.
(2001). “Theory of mind” impairments and their relation-
ship to executive functioning following frontal lobe excisions.
Brain, 124, 600–616.

Salthouse, T. A., Atkinson, T. M., & Berish, D. E. (2003).
Executive functioning as a potential mediator of age-related
cognitive decline in normal adults. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: General, 132, 566–594.
Scheres, A., Oosterlaan, J., Geurts, H., Morein-Zamir, S.,
Meiran, N., Schut, H., et al. (2004). Executive functioning in
boys with ADHD: Primarily an inhibition deficit? Archives
of Clinical Neuropsychology, 19, 569–594.
Schoechlin, C., & Engel, R. R. (2005). Neuropsychological
performance in adult attention-deficit hyperactivity disor-
der: Meta-analysis of empirical data. Archives of Clinical
Neuropsychology, 20, 727–744.
Sergeant, J. A., Geurts, H., & Oosterlaan, J. (2002). How spe-
cific is a deficit of executive functioning for attention-deficit/
hyperactivity disorder? Behavioural Brain Research, 130,
3–28.
Downloaded By: [Universidad de Malaga] At: 19:46 12 February 2011
CONCEPTUALIZATION OF EXECUTIVE FUNCTIONS 15
Shallice, T. (1982). Specific impairment of planning.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London,
B(298), 199–209.
Shallice, T., & Burgess, P. (1991). Deficits in strategy appli-
cation following frontal lobe damage in man. Brain, 114,
727–741.
Welsh, M. C., Pennington, B. F., & Groisser, D. B. (1991).
A normative developmental study of executive function: A
window on prefrontal function in children. Developmental
Neuropsychology, 7, 131–149.
Willcutt, E. G., Doyle, A. E., Nigg, J. T., Faraone, S. V.,
& Pennington, B. F. (2005). Validity of the executive
function theory of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disor-
der: A meta-analytic review. Biological Psychiatry, 57,
1336–1346.