*** MODERATOR NOTE: This thread was created from posts from the thread titled "Can executive functions be taught / learned" [http://www.addforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=32947] ***


Everyone on this forum who has dressed themselves this morning has demonstrated executive control…
Sorry to put a damper on this, but it just ain’t so.

No research exists that shows the existence of so-called ‘executive functions’. It’s a sometimes useful logical framework for discussing a particular view of behavior, but unfortunately one that’s pretty far from what’s going on at the neural level.

The persistence of the idea that ‘executive functions’ actually reflect the activity or organization of neural structures reveals a lack of appreciation of how our brains work.

And as the previous posts indicate, it’s a mistake made by some pretty big name researchers. But it’s just a blind alley in the path to a general understanding of neural function. Not so useful in the big picture, and an impediment to progress that can be quite irritating.

There’s no way to learn ‘executive functions’ because they’re an illusion. They don’t actually exist.

To clarify the analysis of the linguistic framework that includes ‘executive functions’:

It’s relatively easy to identify the patterns of behavior associated with ‘executive functions’ as artifacts arising from observation of the external evidence of the underlying operation of neural structures, rather than directly as a consequence of that operation.

All we have to do is observe that the determination of impairment of the associated neural structures depends on an unstated comparative, to a model of normal function. When we shift this model the degree of impairment changes, and can even be made to disappear.

If behavior assumed to reflect operation of ‘executive functions’ was directly due to activity (or lack thereof) of neural structures, the impairment would be invariant over all models of normal behavior.

Broken is broken. With any real underlying defect we can expect the character of any observed impairment to shift with the applied comparative, but the degree won’t be particularly affected.

Indeed, careful consideration of neural function inevitably leads to the conclusion that any recognizable behavior should be assumed to result from the normal operation of fundamentally correct structures.

Only after the basic function is understood and accounted for should we begin to ask whether residual variations in the observed behavior might be attributed to an actual defect of the underlying structures. In our experience, real impairment is easily identifiable, quite distinct in its character.

The really interesting question is how the appearance of impairment can arise from the normal function of correctly formed structures. More specifically, we see two distinct modes of normal operation, one associated with ‘normal’ behavior, and the other associated with AD/HD.

The functioning associated with AD/HD may be judged to cause impairment in the sense that it can negatively impact our ordinary experience within a social context. But it is fundamentally incorrect to assume that reflects an actual impairment in the underlying neural mechanisms that give rise to that experience.

Such assumptions are counterproductive at best, diverting valuable resources that could be better spent in understanding the real causes of the appearance of AD/HD. To us, the entire logical framework that includes ‘executive functions’ seems less than useless, tainted by the seductive suggestion of underlying causes that are only illusory.

There are better, clearer views.

--Tom and Kay

I should also add that many individuals who, to my mind at least, SHOULD be diagnosible under the DSM rules as having ADD/ADHD aren't because they don't have difficulty in two or more major aspects of life. ADD/ADHD seems to me to be a highly contextual disorder and some individuals do remarkably well when they find themselves in a supportive and flexible enviroment that plays to their strengths. Such individuals often avoid the pitfalls of "not fitting in" that many of the rest of us encounter.

Stabile,

There’s no way to learn ‘executive functions’ because they’re an illusion. They don’t actually exist.Bravo! I'm no expert in neuroscience but I've read enough to know that concepts should not be reified. The "ghost in the machine," homunculus, executive function, etc. are dualistic artifacts that limit investigation by using outmoded linguistic practices.

To us, the entire logical framework that includes ‘executive functions’ seems less than useless, tainted by the seductive suggestion of underlying causes that are only illusory.Again, well said.

Your critique style reminds me of Richard Rorty's (& Donald Davidson's, Thomas Kuhn's, Wittgenstein's, etc.).

I'm now going to go back and reread your post another three times :).

SL

Well stabile I was being a bit lazy in my writing.... Talk therapy, can and does change brain function. How much, and how well varies, but it's been demonstrated time and time again that this happens. Does it happen to executive centers? In some instances it has been shown that it does. How much varies from individual to individual.

You are absolutely right in some respects about terminology. The more specific, and I mean that in the most absolute sense (such as talking about area 25 in the brain when discussing certain issues with chronic depression), the more useful language is.

It's is, in fact, also accurate to say that coping skills being learned are not the same as executive function improvement. At least not all the time. What they are though is making the best of the executive function you have, and possibly using medication to extend that function enough to LEARN such skills.

So while I may not have been as specific as was possible, I think I addressed the point in a realistic and useful fashion.

I admit I was lazy though. :-(

DARN YOU AND YOUR GOOD INFLUENCES! DARN YOU TO HECK SIR!!!!


Well.... Not really. ;-)

Oh, I don't believe "executive functions" at least not by the definition neurolgist's use, are an illusion.

In point of fact, I feel that no one knows enough to be sure of anything yet when it comes to "subjective consciousness", and when it comes to "objective consciousness" they are making real in-roads. Antonio Demasio's work is rather thought provoking and his book "the feeling of what happens" discusses his model of consciousness, which seems to be dovetailing rather nicely with observations by others in his field and with the work of people like Eric Kandel and Ledoux.

While I will certainly agree that it's not ALL in the hardware, I still maintain that the hardware makes most of the "emergent" properties of consciouness as we know it happen.

There are for example a great many human beings alive who simply don't have language (this is due largely to circumstances similar to the deaf in ecuador prior to a formal sign language finally being adopted (actually created within a single generation by a community of deaf people there without assistance)). Now most examples occur in similarly isolated deaf persons in communities like migrant laborers. These people don't have the cultural transmission that many would like to pin modern consciousness on, but they are indisputably intelligent and conscious of both themselves and others. As work by scientists working with them has shown rather convincingly.

I think this demonstrates that there is a lot more physically going on than many think when it comes to consciousness.

Language, as Stephen Pinker demonstrates extremely convincingly, is a bad candidate for "mentalese" (IE the language the brain thinks in). For starters as Stabile very capably insists words are inherently imprecise and we depend heavily on learned contextual meaning (one of the reasons why something like 80% of the information we communicate in conversations is NON-VERBAL in nature). For finishers, it's a poor universal system for the various types of data processing the brain does.

http://news-info.wustl.edu/news/page/normal/455.html
Study done a Washington University in St. Louis-One of the big dogs in medical research. Note the paragraph at the end that I highlighted in blue.
Study lifts veil on brain's executive function
http://news-info.wustl.edu/images/spacer.gif
By David F. Salisbury
http://news-info.wustl.edu/images/spacer.gif


Nashville, Tenn., Oct. 2, 2003 -- The "CEO" in your brain appears to be concerned more about the consequences of your actions than how hard they are to produce.

That is the implication of a detailed study of the neuronal activity in a critical area of the brain, called the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), published in the Oct. 3 issue of the journal Science. It is the latest in a series of experiments that are beginning to lift the veil on the brain's "executive function" - how it monitors its own performance so that it can regulate behavior. Many cognitive scientists feel that the ACC may be at the heart of this higher order system.

http://news-info.wustl.edu/pub/libs/images/usr/358_t.jpgJoshua Brown, WUSTL research associate in psychology in Arts & Sciences, is co-author of a study of the brain's executive function published in the Oct. 3 issue of the journal Science.

He offers the comments below to explain his role in the research and its relation to other ongoing research at Washington University.

We've all experienced the satisfaction of a goal achieved, or an unexpected windfall like finding a $20 bill lying in the street. On the other hand, we've all had the feeling of disappointment when, despite our best efforts, things don't work out as we intended. It may be a relationship, or it may be trying to catch a bus or a plane. Sometimes we just know things won't work out before the failure actually happens, and sometimes a failure is totally unexpected. How do we know that something isn't going to work out as we intend, or that it didn't work out? How do we recognize success as a result of effort versus an unexpected windfall?

We investigated a specific area in the brains of macaque monkeys called the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) and found individual cells that process this information.

The ACC isn't the only part of the brain that processes these kinds of signals, but the finding is important, because the ACC plays a key role in disorders such as schizophrenia and obsessive-compulsive disorder in humans.

Other research here at Washington University suggests how the ACC uses these signals to help people control their actions. For example, if a task is difficult or the task requirements change frequently, the ACC seems to help people slow down and be more careful. Similarly, we have evidence from other investigators that the ACC may drive someone to try a different problem-solving approach altogether when the current approach isn't working. Previous work from other labs suggested that too much ACC activity leads people to try to correct a problem that doesn't exist, such as repeatedly checking to see whether the lights were turned off at night even when you already know they are turned off. This is a fundamental characteristic of obsessive-compulsive disorder. On the other hand, if the ACC doesn't function properly as it should, it can diminish a person's ability to recognize their own mistakes and correct them or at least acknowledge them. A lot of evidence suggests that this kind of dysfunction is a key factor in mental illnesses such as schizophrenia. The significance of this work is that it reveals how certain brain cells in these areas actually process and represent signals corresponding to awareness of the consequences of one's own actions.

Another exciting aspect of this study is that as we learn how the brain cells process this information, we at Washington University are also working to combine that with the tremendous speed of today's computers and actually program a computer to simulate how the brain processes information and monitors its own behavior, using the technology of neural networks. This may reveal more about how the brain functions improperly in neuropsychiatric disorders such as obsessive-compulsive disorder and schizophrenia. Researchers found the ACC responds to discrepancies between a person's intentions and what actually occurs when actions are performed, providing new support for one popular theory on its function. But they did not find evidence of neural activity in the ACC when the brain is forced to change course in mid-action, as predicted by another popular theory.

"The broad question is, 'How does the brain monitor and control intentional actions.' Our research indicates that it does so by monitoring the consequences of such actions, not the actions themselves," says Jeffrey Schall, Ingram Professor of Neuroscience and director of Vanderbilt's Center for Integrative and Cognitive Neuroscience. He directed the study with doctoral student Shigehiko Ito, post-doctoral fellow Veit Stuphorn, and Joshua Brown, a research associate at Washington University.

Brown adds that "the ACC isn't the only part of the brain that processes these kinds of signals, but this finding is important because the ACC plays a key role in disorders such as schizophrenia and obsessive-compulsive disorder in humans. Other research here at Washington University suggests how the ACC uses these signals to help people control their actions."

The researchers investigated the ACC through detailed studies measuring the response of hundreds of individual neurons in the ACC of macaque monkeys as the animals performed a task that required self-control. Macaques serve as the primary animal model for higher cognitive function.

The monkeys were trained to look at a visual target displayed in different positions on a computer screen, unless they received a stop signal. They were taught not to look at the target after receiving such a signal. The monkeys' eye movements were tracked with enough precision so that they could be correlated with neuronal activity. The monkeys were trained by rewarding them with squirts of juice when they correctly followed instructions.

By requiring the monkeys to inhibit a movement after their brain had begun preparing to execute it, Schall and his colleagues created situations that isolated different types of neural signals. By recording in the ACC while the monkeys responded to these situations, the researchers successfully identified neurons that signaled discrepancies between intentions and actions, what the researchers refer to as errors.

"The elegance of this paper is that they were able to sort out different cognitive components or behavioral components that might be driving neural activity in the cingulate," says Tomas Paus of McGill University, a neuroscientist who was not involved in the study but also investigates this part of the brain.

This methodology allowed the researchers to determine whether activity in the anterior cingulate signaled that the action deviated from what the monkey had intended or signaled that the consequences of the action differed from what he anticipated. "We had a few trials where he did the right movement but we didn't give him juice. We found that many of these neurons also fired following the absence of reinforcement," says Schall. In these trials the monkey's action was correct but the consequence was unexpected. If the ACC were monitoring the actions alone, the neurons would not have responded.

The researchers also found that there was an appreciable time lag in the responses of the neurons in the anterior cingulate compared to that of neurons in another part of the frontal lobe, the supplementary eye field - an area that Schall and coworkers had previously shown to contain neurons signaling success, errors and degree of difficulty in eye-tracking tasks.

"This delay makes it unlikely that the purpose of the error detection that we discovered in the ACC is to correct actions as they take place," said Schall.

An influential theory about ACC function has suggested that the brain is sensitive to the conflict that arises when tasks are too complex and subjects are being asked to do more than they can without making errors. Schall's earlier work on the supplementary eye field found neurons signaling this conflict, but they failed to find neurons signaling conflict alone in the ACC. This observation is at odds with certain functional brain imaging studies in humans.

http://news-info.wustl.edu/pub/libs/images/usr/357.jpgPhoto courtesy of Vanderbilt UniversityThe anterior cingulate cortex, shown in red, may help the brain monitor and control intentional actions.

These results do not mean that the ACC does not also monitor conflicts, Schall cautions. Virtually all of the human measurements have been made using tasks that involve button pushing or other manual tasks, rather than eye movements. The ACC has no direct connections to the areas of the brain that control the eyes but it does have direct connections to those that control the muscles in the hands and arms. So hand movements may be controlled differently than eye movements. There is also the possibility that the ACC in humans may function differently than it does in monkeys.

"These results are telling us that things are not as simple as some people have thought," says Paus, who adds that we won't really be able to tie these signals back to cognitive functions until researchers can go beyond the current stage of simply recording brain activities to that of actually inducing changes in brain activity - either through the administration of drugs or electrical stimulation to small groups of neurons - and observing the changes in behavior that result.

The research was funded by grants from the National Institute for Mental Health, the National Eye Institute, McKnight Endowment Fund for Neuroscience and the Deutscheforschungs Gemeinschaft.

No research exists that shows the existence of so-called ‘executive functions’. It’s a sometimes useful logical framework for discussing a particular view of behavior, but unfortunately one that’s pretty far from what’s going on at the neural level.


Welcome back Stabile.

No research can prove ADHD exists. There is no blood test, you can't be 100% certain you have ADHD when you receive a diagnosis of ADHD. On the other hand, what we do have is a body of evidence that it exists. I guess all those Neurologists could be blind and dellusional about executive functions but I don't think so. Didn't we do this dance before?
http://www.addforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=28581

Were you looking for one more kick at the can to expound your pet theory? If I remember correctly, was your belief in the neural network and how this best explained ADHD and the next speciation event. Please show us a body of evidence that supports that viewpoint of how the brain functions. Those of us who have been on the board for years, still await some cold hard evidence.

Stabile,

Bravo! I'm no expert in neuroscience but I've read enough to know that concepts should not be reified. The "ghost in the machine," homunculus, executive function, etc. are dualistic artifacts that limit investigation by using outmoded linguistic practices…
That’s it exactly. The instant we turn our curious eye to the brain and mind, certainty goes right out the window. It’s a whole other game, and blindly following previously successful research practices will go awry every time.


Your critique style reminds me of Richard Rorty's (& Donald Davidson's, Thomas Kuhn's, Wittgenstein's, etc.)
Yikes! I don’t know if we can unblush enough to think of ourselves in that company, but thanks for the thought…

Can executive functioning be improved through learning ? I think the conventional wisdom says "no", but it does beg for other possible answers as well. I think we can do better than attempt to argue that there is no such thing as executive functioning.

ME :D

Okay I have to correct something here. Executive function as understood by neurologists is in NO WAY dualistic.

Not sure who decided it was, but I'm guessing it's from a misunderstanding of the use of the term executive. The executive centers ARE NOT cognitive hardware people. They aren't even located that high in the brain. They are UNDER the cortex. Think limbic system if you want to know where. They aren't some cartesian theatre, and certainly don't exercise any "CONSCIOUS" control over anything. They are "executive" because they REGULATE. No goal, no thought, no higher purpose beyond what natural selection shaped them to do. They modulate feed back loops of various types. This is NOT a case of duality by any measure.

Now, it has been shown quite convincingly that techniques like bio feedback CAN and DO alter executive center function. What exactly is happening? Fact is they don't know on a neuron by neuron level, but they do know there is a functional improvement in the ability to focus and concentrate. Not just on subjects of interest, but across the board. Compared to meds this improvement is rather modest but it is real. That's only one kind of behavioral therapy in use and it's not considered very main stream at that.

Neurology is still grappling with the underpinning of subjective consciousness, but they are making headway. Object consciousness, IE how the brain does various things, particularly how fear and memory work are becoming better and better understood. Eric Kandell just one a nobel for his work on memory, and Ledoux who I mentioned earlier ought to win one for his work on fear and limbic system function. Still another cognitive scientist has discovered a particular region of the brain, known as area 25 that is STRONGLY involved in clinical depression and has shown that "quietting it" (it's activity appears to be directly implicated in emotional regulation and it's in exactly the right brain region one would expect for such a function) results in correction of the problem most cases.

My point is, let's not cloud the issue with mysticims amd maybes. The last ten years alone has shed a huge amount of light on the brain.

I think we can do better than attempt to argue that there is no such thing as executive functioning…
Right. Of course, we’re merely pointing out that ‘executive functions’ are only a linguistic construct, not any physically or logically realized structure in the brain.

There isn’t much to argue about in that, I think. We’re not claiming that the observed patterns of behavior that are associated with ‘executive functions’ don’t exist; that would be silly.

We do feel the current use of the linguistic construct is entirely misleading, but that speaks directly to the original question. There literally isn’t anything you could learn that would directly improve ‘executive functioning’, although you certainly can learn to modify the behavior that is interpreted by the linguistic model.

But why address behavior in terms of an abstract conceptual model that isn’t directly related to the underlying brain function? We’ve already described how the attempt can backfire. Addressing the problem directly at least has the discrete charm of not generating ambiguous systems of behavioral models.

Executive function as understood by neurologists…
The feedback loops you refer to pass through the more primitive parts of the brain, but the common definition of ‘executive’ is still interpreted in terms of high-level behavior.

Tom Brown’s model, at the link Tara posted above, is typical. In general, neurologists are looking for systems that can be associated with these high-level behaviorally defined functions. To our knowledge, there is no separate system of linguistic models in use by neurologists that might include an unrelated ‘executive function’.

Inhibition has often been mixed in there, too, as if inhibitory action at the neural level is related to inhibition of in appropriate behavior. It’s all silly, in our view; there are dozens of simple reality checks that should have stopped this stuff before it got out of hand.

Brown is a psychologist. It’s entirely valid for him to apply a linguistic structure to the analysis of observed behavior, as a tool for treating patients. It’s silly to arbitrarily assume the linguistic constructs reflect the operation of the underlying neural machine.

Lets imagine for a moment that Stabile is totally right and EF's don't exist. This poor parent still wants to know if you can teach your child specific skills to help with core ADHD deficits. That is the question!!


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T4S-4FXG2X0-1&_coverDate=06%2F01%2F2005&_alid=455790069&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_qd=1&_cdi=4982&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=f73cc956331e7de1a83d1f07e443d564
Validity of the Executive Function Theory of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: A Meta-Analytic Review

Aspects of this work were presented at the conference “Advancing the Neuroscience of ADHD,” February 28, 2004 in Boston, Massachusetts. The conference was sponsored by the Society of Biological Psychiatry through an unrestricted educational grant from McNeil Consumer & Specialty Pharmaceuticals.

Erik G. Willcutta, Corresponding Author Contact Information, E-mail The Corresponding Author, Alysa E. Doyleb, Joel T. Niggc, Stephen V. Faraoned and Bruce F. Penningtone

aUniversity of Colorado, Boulder, Boulder, Colorado
bMassachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
cMichigan State University
dSUNY Upstate Medical University, Denver, Colorado
eUniversity of Denver, Denver, Colorado

Received 14 June 2004; revised 31 January 2005; accepted 7 February 2005. Available online 11 April 2005.


One of the most prominent neuropsychologic theories of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) suggests that its symptoms arise from a primary deficit in executive functions (EF), defined as neurocognitive processes that maintain an appropriate problem-solving set to attain a later goal. To examine the validity of the EF theory, we conducted a meta-analysis of 83 studies that administered EF measures to groups with ADHD (total N = 3734) and without ADHD (N = 2969). Groups with ADHD exhibited significant impairment on all EF tasks. Effect sizes for all measures fell in the medium range (.46–.69), but the strongest and most consistent effects were obtained on measures of response inhibition, vigilance, working memory, and planning. Weaknesses in EF were significant in both clinic-referred and community samples and were not explained by group differences in intelligence, academic achievement, or symptoms of other disorders. ADHD is associated with significant weaknesses in several key EF domains. However, moderate effect sizes and lack of universality of EF deficits among individuals with ADHD suggest that EF weaknesses are neither necessary nor sufficient to cause all cases of ADHD. Difficulties with EF appear to be one important component of the complex neuropsychology of ADHD.
We know these ("EF") deficits are there in ADHDers as shown in the above Meta study.

HEY!!!!!!!!!!!!! All you Geeks, CALM DOWN!!! There are enough Nobel Prizes for everyONE on this thread!!! :D

Seriously though, I really, REALLY have appreciated hearing EVERYONE's input on this thread. The stuff that Stabile has added has really gotten a coupla spark plugs a sparkin' in one of my cortexes (or whatever ya call 'em). This has probably been THE MOST educational and the first actually very INTERESTING conversation (to ME) since I've been visiting this board. SO THANK YOU ALL!!

Sue

P.S. Way down deep, I have always had the feeling (this FEAR) that things in my life really ARE exactly as I remember one of the preachers from my childhood warned: that all of my "mental" (or "neural" or "psychological" or "psychiatric") problems really are simply the result of straying from G-d. (Can anyone identify with this?)

My whole point stabile is that nearly ALL higher behavior isn't what it seems. Even supposedly conscious deliberate decisions get made before WE as individuals are even consciously aware of them. A fact that tends to kick a lot of legal persons in the pants because it screws with their definition of free will.

Low level functions are quite literally the foundation for higher level functions. Antonio Demasio sees the brain stem as being more than just the part of the brain that keeps you alive. He sees it's architecture, it's image maps of body and brain status, as being the Key to core consciousness. Add long term and working memory and you have higher level consciousness.

It makes sense if you think about it. The functionality we are aware of is only a tiny fraction of what actually goes on. Our own brains literally keep us in the dark as part of their function, resulting in such unusual phenomenon as attentional blindness.

Also, when language is all you've got for communicating concepts, and you can do it specifically, it works just fine. One thing we can agree on is that language won't always do a suitable job of description because as I'm quite sure you know, brian functions and thoughts don't work in english, or chinese, or spanish. They each work in the way best suited to their specific job. Individual Neurons (while there truly is some functional variety), mostly function the same ways. Nuerons in different parts of the brain form different sorts of networks for different tasks.

One experiment swapped the inputs to the visual processing centers and auditory processing centers in ferrets. As credit to the flexibility of these structures the ferrets were neither deaf, nor blind. HOWEVER, they had VERY degraded functions in both senses because vision and sound are handed by significantly different structures shaped by natural selection to be good at specific types of input.

The idea that you can’t modify behavior is silly, and nobody here seems to be arguing that.

The question is how you formulate strategies and what analysis you use to measure results. For example, biofeedback has been shown effective for (more-or-less) directly modifying various functions of the body, including some brain functions. But it’s most effective when there’s a well-developed model of the systems you’re trying to affect.

Many behavioral modification strategies have failed to be uniformly effective. We believe this is primarily due to a lack of a well developed model of the processes that actually generate behavior in the first place. Naturally, that would lead to a plethora of half-baked, occasionally effective choices, exactly the situation we enjoy today.

Setting out to modify or improve ‘executive functions’ may have some effect, even possibly a lasting positive effect. But understanding what your trying to change would greatly increase the chances of getting the desired results, and in this case, ‘executive functions’ isn’t really it.

Doesn’t mean you can’t change behavior, though, or measure the change in terms of EF…


One of the most prominent neuropsychologic theories of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) suggests that its symptoms arise from a primary deficit in executive functions (EF), defined as neurocognitive processes that maintain an appropriate problem-solving set to attain a later goal. To examine the validity of the EF theory, we conducted a meta-analysis of 83 studies that administered EF measures to groups with ADHD (total N = 3734) and without ADHD (N = 2969). Groups with ADHD exhibited significant impairment on all EF tasks. Effect sizes for all measures fell in the medium range (.46–.69), but the strongest and most consistent effects were obtained on measures of response inhibition, vigilance, working memory, and planning. Weaknesses in EF were significant in both clinic-referred and community samples and were not explained by group differences in intelligence, academic achievement, or symptoms of other disorders. ADHD is associated with significant weaknesses in several key EF domains. However, moderate effect sizes and lack of universality of EF deficits among individuals with ADHD suggest that EF weaknesses are neither necessary nor sufficient to cause all cases of ADHD. Difficulties with EF appear to be one important component of the complex neuropsychology of ADHD.
Thanks to scuro for posting that.

Everybody please note the only reference to neurons is ‘neuropsycologic’ and ‘neurocognitive processes’, appropriate because all behavior is ultimately rooted in neural activity. This usage doesn’t imply specific models of neural processes or structures.

Nothing here suggests there is any connection between EF and real physical or logical structures in the brain, exactly the point we’ve been trying to make.

***In particular, there is no implication at all that we can understand AD/HD as an impairment of some functional structure in the brain.***

The ‘impairment’ is a deficit, determined by a comparative measurement made using the logically defined functions of the analytical linguistic framework, in this case the executive functions.

This doesn’t imply the brains of ADDers are malfunctioning. It simply says they produce behavioral artifacts that are deficient when analyzed with a particular logical framework.

If you take the time to study neural theory, it’s not hard to see that neural mechanisms work differently than the logic implicit in the models these people are using to qualify high level behavior. Our point has always been this:

If you want to change the way your brain works, it’s probably better to think in terms of how it actually works, rather than trying to formulate strategies using a theoretical structure that is fundamentally different than the real thing.

It doesn’t really matter how coherent and consistent the theoretical construct might be. Those qualities only save it from being rejected as unlikely. Much more is required to be accepted as a possible literal description of the underlying mechanism, including elegance and harmony with other existing theoretical descriptions.

The linguistic models that include EF are neither. They’ve always been a complicated (and varying) system for analyzing behavior, and most importantly, they don’t agree with the accepted understanding of how neural mechanisms operate.

Nevertheless, some researchers still insist on looking for evidence of EF at work in brain scans, with some suggesting therapeutic strategies that rely on the assumed connections.

This review quoted by scuro is a welcome exception, but it still would be nice to see the disclaimers that were common in the late Sixties and early Seventies: this stuff should not be taken as descriptive of the architecture of the brain.

Hi Stabile,

sounds logical, at least as far as I get it. But what do you do with that knowledge?
If theres no valid collection of behaviours that map, in a meaninfull way, the structure beneath it, which could be called EFs, then what is?
Whats the steps from knowing that to improving anything?

Well there is evidence of executive function at work, or more accurately of differences in brain function in individuals where it has failed. The area 25 implicated in depression I mentioned earlier is one such area. When it is extremely overactive, it is as though it no longer fulfills it's role properly in interconnecting the various areas of the brain that allow mood regulation. It, in effect, helps regulate mood. In experiments in humans in which electrodes were implanted in this area and mild electric shocks were delivered to desensitize (basically fatigue) these nuerons, the difference in mood in the patients was PROFOUND. It literally stopped depression in it's tracks. Furthermore both talk therapy and meds, when effective, seem to result in a similar reduction in activity in this area. No one understands why this is for sure, if it's a cause or a result of depression. The point is there are a number of things that can change brain function including this disussion

On that I think we are agreed. Seems it always ends that way. I really need to work on my communication skills.

The idea that you can’t modify behavior is silly, and nobody here seems to be arguing that.
You can always stop behaviour by beating the living crap out of someone. Stopping behaviour in a moment of time is no problem. Changing behaviour-always-under all environments is a completely different matter. You can't do it for all kids.

Case in point, the hyperactive 8 year old who just can't seem to stop moving. You can bribe him, spank him, yell at him, talk to him...do all the biofeedback you so desire but the hyperactivity will remain. You can stop him from moving at any given moment of time but you can not teach him to be still when it is appropriate, in all environments.

Thanks to scuro for posting that.

Everybody please note the only reference to neurons is ‘neuropsycologic’ and ‘neurocognitive processes’, appropriate because all behavior is ultimately rooted in neural activity. This usage doesn’t imply specific models of neural processes or structures.

Nothing here suggests there is any connection between EF and real physical or logical structures in the brain, exactly the point we’ve been trying to make.

***In particular, there is no implication at all that we can understand AD/HD as an impairment of some functional structure in the brain.***

The ‘impairment’ is a deficit, determined by a comparative measurement made using the logically defined functions of the analytical linguistic framework, in this case the executive functions.

This doesn’t imply the brains of ADDers are malfunctioning. It simply says they produce behavioral artifacts that are deficient when analyzed with a particular logical framework.

If you take the time to study neural theory, it’s not hard to see that neural mechanisms work differently than the logic implicit in the models these people are using to qualify high level behavior. Our point has always been this:

If you want to change the way your brain works, it’s probably better to think in terms of how it actually works, rather than trying to formulate strategies using a theoretical structure that is fundamentally different than the real thing.

It doesn’t really matter how coherent and consistent the theoretical construct might be. Those qualities only save it from being rejected as unlikely. Much more is required to be accepted as a possible literal description of the underlying mechanism, including elegance and harmony with other existing theoretical descriptions.

The linguistic models that include EF are neither. They’ve always been a complicated (and varying) system for analyzing behavior, and most importantly, they don’t agree with the accepted understanding of how neural mechanisms operate.

Nevertheless, some researchers still insist on looking for evidence of EF at work in brain scans, with some suggesting therapeutic strategies that rely on the assumed connections.

This review quoted by scuro is a welcome exception, but it still would be nice to see the disclaimers that were common in the late Sixties and early Seventies: this stuff should not be taken as descriptive of the architecture of the brain.

You missed the entire point of my post. I wasn't trying to prove anything. The study was simply to show core deficits have been found in numerous studies and that these deficits are statistically significant. In other words, it's very hard to deny that these deficits impair ADHDers.

The point of my last post was to focus our attention back onto these deficits.

Here they are the deficits one more time.

response inhibition
vigilance
working memory
planning

You can always stop behaviour by beating the living crap out of someone. Stopping behaviour in a moment of time is no problem. Changing behaviour-always-under all environments is a completely different matter. You can't do it for all kids.
Right there, too. Those are the limits. But failures are due to individual circumstance; there’s no theoretical barrier to modifying behavior in critters using brains wired with neural structures. (Is there any other kind? Hmmm…)


You missed the entire point of my post. I wasn't trying to prove anything. The study was simply to show core deficits have been found in numerous studies and that these deficits are statistically significant. In other words, it's very hard to deny that these deficits impair ADHDers…
Hmm again. Nope, I’m certain we got it, and we certainly can deny that these deficits impair ADHDers.

The deficits are quantified in the context of the system of linguistic models that includes EF. They’re just numbers, significant only within the system in which they have meaning.

It’s fundamental that we can find any number of valid transformations to different systems, simply because it’s still arbitrary, not actually a model of what’s causing the behavior.

And in some of those alternative systems, the same behavior will show up as statistically significant but net neutral, and in some as an excess of some measured property as compared to Normals.

The linguistic framework that includes EF does not explain; it only describes, and there’s a lot of work to do before it can be associated with underlying causative factors.

This is the core of our problem with the use of these models. Innocent people readily assume they must explain why certain behavioral artifacts occur.

They don’t, and from relatively simple considerations, we doubt such a connection will ever be shown.

Well there is evidence of executive function at work, or more accurately of differences in brain function in individuals where it has failed…
Right, and nicely put. But there are many other models besides EF that explain those differences, some of which are much closer to the kinds of mechanisms we expect to see in neural structures.

EF (and the rest of the associated linguistic model of behavior) is fine as long as you stay within the original context of the model; you don’t need to show anything except internal consistency and appropriateness.

Proposing a connection to a different context is a big step. It requires a much larger effort to validate the model as correctly describing reality, rather than simply being a kind of consistent shorthand.

Oh, but I beg to differ on this one. My father thought he could beat the ADD out of me. I certainly didn't like the beatings, but the bahavioral changes he wanted were simply beyond me. So, I got more beatings. I also got labled stubborn, as though I was willfully incurring beatings just to irritate him.

Ah, good times.


Lest this sound more horrid than it is, I would only call my father's behavior physically abusive on one occasion. Still punishments over things beyond your ability to control aren't much fun. Especially since at the time I had no idea how to "FIX" myself.

You can always stop behaviour by beating the living crap out of someone. Stopping behaviour in a moment of time is no problem. Changing behaviour-always-under all environments is a completely different matter. You can't do it for all kids.

Case in point, the hyperactive 8 year old who just can't seem to stop moving. You can bribe him, spank him, yell at him, talk to him...do all the biofeedback you so desire but the hyperactivity will remain. You can stop him from moving at any given moment of time but you can not teach him to be still when it is appropriate, in all environments.

Right, and nicely put. But there are many other models besides EF that explain those differences, some of which are much closer to the kinds of mechanisms we expect to see in neural structures.

EF (and the rest of the associated linguistic model of behavior) is fine as long as you stay within the original context of the model; you don’t need to show anything except internal consistency and appropriateness.

Proposing a connection to a different context is a big step. It requires a much larger effort to validate the model as correctly describing reality, rather than simply being a kind of consistent shorthand.


Okay on this we agree. The fact is, even if certain regions of the brain do perform and executive function in so far as moderating, modulating, or otherwise regulating other functions, they also likely perform other functions. So it would be inappropriate to call them by one name describing one of many functions, but no the rest. In fairness to those who use these lables, it's simply a matter of utility. Eventually they change as the available information does. "Pleasure centers" for example aren't called that much anymore. Now they're "SEEKING" centers. The change was made because of better understanding of how and what they actually do and how they influence and mediate behavior. Likely, that particular name will change again.

Language terms are, by their very nature, imprecise. Language in general, for example, is hugely context and backround dependent. However, it's the best trick we have for transmitting information in detail from mind to mind.

I would, personally, forget ADD exists, then do some of what I call "executive functioning." It's doing what is expected of the person. It does have to be learned and hardly anyone gets this.

Some of the people on these forums have a bit of an ego problem... I personally don't feel at war with others, just misunderstood once in awhile.

Proper upbringing helps to let people learn how to "executive function". But, the person must be willing to let go of themselves and be there for others, which is the most important thing.

Still being urself. First off, there is no cut between linear thinking and so-called ADD non-linear thinking.

U choose what you become. Where are you going to put your eggs?

The game society plays, is not bad. It's necessary, actually. Someone has to do the dirty work. It just works out that way, it's how it goes.

What else is not all bad? War provokes a lot of thought and wakes people up. Rather than splitting people from each other, a wonderful thing happens. It can become intimate. People are getting more experience and becoming more close-knit, eventually. Those whose paths cross, are bound to cross again and maybe they won't see each other in that same light, as their ancestors saw them.

Killing is the bad part, many young individuals die, which is very very bad for us.

Medication does help, and would probably help most people. It's very good that you keep your children on the stimulants. It's bypassing those mostly useless impulses which people are seeing as style or natural.

People are not automatic functions, takes time and a will to be open to not giving up on humanity.

Not sure if I defined my version of "executive functions"all that completely before: They are just functions in which pretty much all people would not find offensive, or ugly.