New User Special Price Expires in

Let's log you in.

Sign in with Facebook


Don't have a StudySoup account? Create one here!


Create a StudySoup account

Be part of our community, it's free to join!

Sign up with Facebook


Create your account
By creating an account you agree to StudySoup's terms and conditions and privacy policy

Already have a StudySoup account? Login here


by: Jacqueline Di Marzio
Jacqueline Di Marzio

Preview These Notes for FREE

Get a free preview of these Notes, just enter your email below.

Unlock Preview
Unlock Preview

Preview these materials now for free

Why put in your email? Get access to more of this material and other relevant free materials for your school

View Preview

About this Document

practice uploading chapters/info covered date email for questions
Motor Speech Disorders
Patrick Henley
Class Notes
25 ?




Popular in Motor Speech Disorders

Popular in Linguistics and Speech Pathology

This 14 page Class Notes was uploaded by Jacqueline Di Marzio on Thursday August 25, 2016. The Class Notes belongs to CDIS 5035 at East Tennessee State University taught by Patrick Henley in Fall 2016. Since its upload, it has received 5 views. For similar materials see Motor Speech Disorders in Linguistics and Speech Pathology at East Tennessee State University.

Popular in Linguistics and Speech Pathology


Reviews for Delete


Report this Material


What is Karma?


Karma is the currency of StudySoup.

You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!

Date Created: 08/25/16
Developmental Psychology © 2015 American Psychological Association 2015, Vol. 51, No. 1, 101–114 0012-1649/15/$12 Examining Executive Function in the Second Year of Life: Coherence, Stability, and Relations to Joint Attention and Language Stephanie E. Miller Stuart Marcovitch University of Mississippi University of North Carolina at Greensboro Several theories of executive function (EF) propose that EF development corresponds to children’s ability to form representations and reflect on represented stimuli in the environment. However, research on early EF is primarily conducted with preschoolers, despite the fact that important developments in representation (e.g., language, gesture, shared joint attention) occur within the 1st years of life. In the present study, EF performance and the relationship between EF and early representation (i.e., joint attention, language) were longitudinally examined in 47 children at 14 and 18 months of age. Results suggest that the 2nd year of life is a distinct period of EF development in which children exhibit very little coherence or stability across a battery of EF tasks. However, by 18 months, a subset of child participants consistently passed the majority of EF tasks, and superior EF performance was predicted by 14-month representational abilities (i.e., language comprehension and some episodes of initiating joint attention). This research suggests that the transition from foundational behavioral control in infancy to the more complex EF observed in preschool is supported by representational abilities in the 2nd year of life. Keywords: executive function, joint attention, longitudinal, toddlers, representation Despite the wealth of information regarding behavioral and 2008; Marcovitch & Zelazo, 2006, 2009; Zelazo, 2004). The goal cognitive control in preschool and childhood (for reviews, see of the current research was to conduct a systematic study of EF Carlson, 2005; Garon, Bryson, & Smith, 2008; Jacques & Marco- during the 2nd year of life through the administration of multiple vitch, 2010), research examining the development of executive EF tasks in conjunction with the examination of early communi- function (EF; i.e., conscious control over thought and behavior cative abilities thought to underlie the ability to control behavior. directed toward a goal) rarely extends to children younger than 3 The study of EF in this age range has the potential to extend years of age. Certainly, there are indications that infants and developmental frameworks to focus on the emergence of EF and toddlers begin to demonstrate controlled, goal-directed behavior link studies of behavioral control in infancy to EF work in pre- through developments in problem solving (e.g., Chen, Sanchez, & school. Campbell, 1997; Diamond, 2006), delaying gratification (e.g., Few researchers have examined EF in the 2nd year of life using Kochanska, Tjebkes, & Forman, 1998), and imitation (e.g., Alp, a battery of EF tasks. Diamond, Prevor, Callender, and Druin 1994; Wiebe & Bauer, 2005). However, it is difficult to discern (1997) collected data on 15-, 18-, and 21-month-olds’ EF as part of whether these isolated instances of infants’ behavioral control are a longitudinal study on the cognitive functioning of children related to later EF, in which preschoolers evidence complex cog- treated for phenylketonuria in early childhood. Through their ex- nitive control across multiple EF tasks. Further, most empirical amination of matched controls, Diamond and colleagues found studies of early behavioral control study children within the 1st some evidence for growth in EF abilities within this age range. For year of life (e.g., Chen et al., 1997; Diamond, 1985), despite the instance, in the three-boxes task, children were encouraged to fact that various frameworks propose that important developments retrieve three identical toys hidden in three different-colored in EF occur during the 2nd year (e.g., Diamond, 2006; Garon et al., boxes. Search required increasing levels of cognitive and behav- This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated searched at one location, the toy was removed and they had to monitor and inhibit search to the previously correct location to find the new toy. Children’s perfor- mance in both versions (i.e., boxes scrambled and unscrambled Editor’s Note. NameeraAkhtarservedastheactioneditorforthisarticle.—JSE before search) improved, as evidenced by the fact that they re- quired fewer searches to find all toys across the 2nd year. How- Stephanie E. Miller, Department of Psychology, University of Missis- ever, improvement was not demonstrated across the entire battery sippi; Stuart Marcovitch, Department of Psychology, University of North of EF tasks administered. In the A-not-B task with invisible Carolina at Greensboro. The authors thank Rebecca Bryce, Sarah Bianco, and Ivy Kears for their displacement, after repeatedly searching for a hidden object and help with data collection and the families who participated in the study.building a habit toward one hiding location, location A, children were encouraged to switch search to a new location, location B Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Stephanie(see Marcovitch & Zelazo, 2009). However, the addition of invis- E. Miller, Department of Psychology, University of Mississippi, 207 Pea- body, Lyceum Circle, P.O. Box 1848, University, MS 38677. E-mail: ible displacement to the traditional A-not-B task (i.e., the toy was moved to the A or B location out of the direct sight of the child) 101 MILLER AND MARCOVITCH 102 resulted in poor performance during the 2nd year, which did not guides behavior across all tasks, because shifting- and WM- begin to improve until after 21 months. In another study examining specific abilities may have not yet emerged (Garon et al., 2008; early EF across a battery of tasks, Wiebe, Lukowski, and Bauer Wiebe et al., 2011). The initial poor performance and lack of (2010) actually uncovered growth in the A-not-B task with invis- cohesion in the 2nd year of life could reflect the initial absence and ible displacement in addition to the three-boxes task scrambled and gradual emergence of a unitary EF in this transitional period of EF an imitation task in which children had to remember a sequence of development. actions to achieve a goal (related to holding information in mind). One way to provide additional support for the existence and In this EF battery, Wiebe and colleague’s participants demon- emergence of a common EF ability in children is to examine strated initially poor performance at 15 months, and performance factors hypothesized to underlie common EF. Specifically, repre- on all tasks improved by 20 months of age. sentational ability (i.e., the ability to form, maintain, and reflect on Although children improved across a number of EF tasks during mental information) has been linked repeatedly with EF. For this transitional period, closer examination of the cohesion and instance, Munakata’s (1998) active–latent model suggests that stability across EF tasks reveals critical differences compared with active memory traces processed in the prefrontal cortex (e.g., later preschool performance. Diamond et al. (1997) did not find maintenance of relevant representations) can aid in the control of any interrelations between EF tasks. Wiebe et al. (2010) also behavior, whereas latent memory traces processed in the more demonstrated that performance across different EF tasks was gen- posterior regions of the brain (e.g., habitual or prepotent forces on erally not correlated concurrently at 15 or 20 months of age, behavior) can often result in incorrect automatic responses. Zelazo although there were a few exceptions. Further, individual differ- and colleagues’ (Jacques & Marcovitch, 2010; Marcovitch & ences in task performance were not stable (i.e., performance at 15 Zelazo, 2006; Zelazo, 2004) reflection-based accounts suggest that months was not well correlated with performance at 20 months). reflection on or processing of task-relevant information at a higher This conflicts with perspectives suggesting that performance level (also within the prefrontal cortex) is a crucial representational across EF tasks should show some degree of overlap in childhood ability necessary in the control of behavior. Most important, Mi- and into adulthood (e.g., Lehto, Juuaärvi, Kooistra, & Pulkkinen, yake and Friedman’s (2012) definition of common EF implicates 2003; Miyake & Friedman, 2012; Miyake et al., 2000; Wiebe, representation in the maintenance of task-relevant information Espy, & Charak, 2008; Wiebe et al., 2011) and is generally stable used to influence lower level processes. Specifically, they link across time (Carlson, Mandell, & Williams, 2004; Hughes & maintenance of task-relevant information to representational Ensor, 2005, 2007). strength and have suggested, through neural network modeling Understanding exactly what this lack of cohesion and lack of work, that one of the parameters linked to individual differences in stability mean in the 2nd year warrants a review of their impor- common EF is related to the strength of representations maintained tance in later EF. Currently, there is some debate as to whether in the prefrontal cortex. Although Miyake and Friedman’s ratio- these relations point to a unitary account of EF in which a single nale does not focus on development, it is strikingly similar to control mechanism is responsible for cognitive control (e.g., Bad- developmental theories of EF development (Jacques & Marco- deley, 1992; Norman & Shallice, 1986) or the diversity in EF vitch, 2010; Marcovitch & Zelazo, 2006 ; Munakata, 1998; Zelazo, should be acknowledged (e.g., Carlson & Moses, 2001; Diamond, 2004) suggesting that the strength of underlying representations 2002; Lehto et al., 2003; Miyake et al., 2000) by noting the influences EF. However, because children’s ability to form and use separate subprocesses that likely contribute to EF (e.g., working representations is developing, the development of EF should be memory [WM], the ability to hold and manipulate increasing associated with the development of representation. amounts of task-relevant information in mind over delays; inhibi- In preschoolers, demonstrations of the link between EF and tion, the suppression of prepotent or affectively driven behaviors; representation come from numerous studies correlating EF with shifting, flexible switching of responses and attention between language ability (e.g., Carlson & Moses, 2001; Hughes, 1998; task-relevant information). Further complicating this debate, rela- Hughes & Ensor, 2007) and experimental work demonstrating that tions between EF tasks seem to change with age, as confirmatory language and symbolic manipulations typically improve EF in factor analysis work suggests that performance on EF tasks in preschoolers (for a review, see Jacques & Zelazo, 2005). However, preschool is best explained by a unitary EF factor (Wiebe et al., no studies have examined the link between representation and EF This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.espite the fact that several representational supported in later childhood and adulthood (Lehto et al., 2003; models propose that important developments in representation and This arMiyake et al., 2000). Miyake and Friedman’s (2012) unity/diver- user anEF occur before that age. For instance, the reflection-based levels sity framework may reconcile these theoretical and structural EF of consciousness (LoC) model (Zelazo, 2004) details development differences by proposing the existence of a common EF (i.e., in children’s representational ability by describing how children maintenance of task-relevant information that guides lower level become more conscious of relevant stimuli and actions in their processes toward execution of a goal) that is shared across all environment. At the lowest level of consciousness (minimal con- component processes. Thus, although Miyake and Friedman main- sciousness), infants’ awareness is automatic and unreflective (e.g., tain that the ability to control thought and behavior can still be they may respond automatically to a rattle by sucking on it). At the separated into several underlying EF component abilities, all of end of the 1st year, recursive consciousness emerges, and children these component abilities draw on common EF in addition to become less reflexive and can reflect on objects in consciousness through component-specific abilities (i.e., WM and shifting-specific abili- labeling (e.g., putting the lrl ttle on the object links the current ties), and individual differences in the inhibition component can be experience to a semantic memory, such as that it makes noise). entirely explained by common EF. Applied to developmental data, Development of this higher level of consciousness results in more a unitary EF factor in preschool may reflect common EF that controlled behavior, or better EF, because it allows infants to EXECUTIVE FUNCTION AND JOINT ATTENTION 103 override habitual responses (Marcovitch & Zelazo, 2009). For guage when examined concurrently in a meta-analysis, declarative example, labeling and reflecting on the rattle may lead children to pointing was more predictive of later language than was imperative control behavior and shake, rather than suck on, the rattle. pointing. Further, age moderated this relationship and suggested that Studies have not yet extended this representational framework the longitudinal relationship between earlier pointing and later lan- to early EF development, likely because of the difficulties of guage became stronger when declarative pointing was measured later examining representational abilities in children this young. Al- in life (i.e., 15–20 months of age) compared with earlier assessments. though measures of early receptive and productive vocabulary Colonnesi et al. suggested that these results provide support for the exist, the representations of language novices are not analogous to idea that pointing is the first instance of referential and intentional older children’s representations. For instance, it has been proposed communication that contributes to language. that young children must first generate linguistic or symbolic information in a social context for it to have meaning (e.g., Present Study Vygotsky, 1934/1986). Second, measures of representation in older children (typically vocabulary and language) may not be the In this study, we examined the emergence of EF and its relation best measures of younger children’s representational competence. to representational abilities (i.e., joint attention and language) One ability that emerges within the first 2 years of life and has concurrently and longitudinally from 14 to 18 months of age. Four strong ties to later language, representation, and nonlinguistic measures of EF were administered. A more difficult version of communication is joint attention (e.g., Colonnesi, Stams, Koster, Piaget’s (1954) A-not-B task (i.e., five hiding locations and a 10-s & Noom, 2010; Tomasello & Farrar, 1986). Joint attention is a delay) was included because it requires multiple EF abilities, such social–cognitive and communicative hallmark that emerges in as holding the hiding location in mind, inhibiting the prepotent infancy and refers to the behaviors that describe infants’ and response to search at location A, and shifting to a new response set agents’ shared reference to objects or events (Carpenter, Nagell, (Marcovitch & Zelazo, 2009). The forbidden toy task, based on Tomasello, Butterworth, & Moore, 1998). However, attention can Kochanska et al.’s (1998) work prohibiting infants from playing be shared in a variety of ways, and Mundy and colleagues (Mundy with an attractive toy, was included as an age-appropriate delay- et al., 2007; Mundy & Gomes, 1998; Mundy & Newell, 2007) of-gratification task (see Carlson, 2005; Garon et al., 2008). The have distinguished between two different types of joint attention: three-boxes task (Diamond et al., 1997) was included because it responding to joint attention (RJA; i.e., following others’ atten- requires children to hold object locations in mind and update this tion) and initiating joint attention (IJA; i.e., directing attention). information throughout the task. Finally, the imitation sorting task RJA emerges first and is guided by a more primitive attention (Alp, 1994), requiring children to imitate an experimenter sorting system (i.e., the orienting attention system), which is based on an increasing number of objects into two buckets, was adminis- attention to novelty, whereas IJA is supported by a later develop- tered because it has been used to assess children’s ability to hold ing executive attention system responsible for higher levels of information in mind over a delay. It is important to note that internal control of attention. These attention systems have also performance on all of these tasks would benefit from common EF been tied to the emergence of executive control, with Posner, (Miyake & Friedman, 2012) and the ability to form and reflect on Rothbart, Sheese, and Voelker (2012) suggesting that the orienting relevant representations to guide behavior (Jacques & Marcovitch, attention network initially controls behavior in infancy and tran- 2010; Marcovitch & Zelazo, 2009; Zelazo, 2004). sitions to the executive attention network by 3–4 years of age. Language comprehension and production were measured via the Thus, the emergence of a common EF guided by representational parent-report MacArthur-Bates Communicative Development In- ability (e.g., IJA within the executive attention system) may also ventories (CDI; Fenson et al., 2007). Joint attention measures were be in line with Posner and colleagues’ proposed transition of adapted from the Early Social Communication Scale (ESCS; regulation shifting to the executive attention system in the toddler Mundy et al., 2003), constructed to measure early social under- and preschool years. standing of children from 8 months to 30 months of age. Because More directly related to representational theories of EF devel- active sharing joint attention behaviors were hypothesized to be most opment, IJA behaviors have been identified as some of the first strongly related to EF (e.g.,Zelazo, 2004), we included the object instances of higher representation in the 1st years of life. For spectacle task and the book presentation task, designed to elicit IJA This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.ting, shared gazing) by presenting children with labeling may actually be declarative pointing (i.e., pointing to interesting and novel toys. Further, because self-initiated gesture was This ardirect and share attention with another). Because this type ofl user andhypothesized to encourage stronger representations used to guide EF pointing is meant to direct or share attention, children must have (e.g., Zelazo, 2004), IJA-higher behaviors (i.e., declarative pointing some reason to direct attention, and this declarative interest in the and showing gesturing toward adults) were examined. In addition, we object essentially results in labeling—linking the object in the measured RJA behaviors (i.e., behaviors related tosharingattention current environment to some idea, experience, or concept to share. in response to an adult) with a gaze-following task in which an adult Within the pointing literature, many theorists have also considered pointed to an interesting object. We also measured initiating behav- declarative pointing more complex (relative to imperative pointing ioral request behaviors (IBR; i.e., behaviors related to requesting an to control another’s behavior, such as requesting an object), be- objectinitiatedby the child) in the object spectacle task. Although we cause it involves children’s intentional action with the goal of hypothesized that RJA and IBRs would not relate to EF, these mea- initiating and directing the attention of another to a third entity sures were included to determine whether any sharing or child- (e.g., Mundy & Newell, 2007; Tomasello, Carpenter, & Lisz- initiated behavior was related to EF or there was something particular kowski, 2007). Although Colonnesi et al. (2010) provided support to child-initiated sharing behaviors critical to the development of for a robust relationship between all forms of pointing and lan- representation and EF. 104 MILLER AND MARCOVITCH We had two major goals in this study. First, we sought to Executive Function Measures describe EF abilities during the 2nd year of life by observing EF A-not-B task with multiple hiding locations. The hiding task performance across our four EF tasks, coherence between EF measures concurrently, and longitudinal stability from 14 to 18 apparatus consisted of five shallow wells (9.5 cm in diameter, 7 cm months of age. Second, we aimed to investigate the relationship in depth) used as hiding locations embedded within a wooden box between developing representation and EF through examination of (43 cm length ⫻ 56 cm width ⫻ 7 cm height). Hiding locations were arranged in a semicircle configuration, such that each hiding children’s joint attention and parent-report measures of receptive and productive vocabulary. On the basis of representational theo- location was 16 cm from the point where the box would be placed ries of EF development, we hypothesized that abilities linked to in front of children to search. Each hiding location was covered by children’s representational abilities (i.e., language and higher lev- blue felt that sealed and opened with Velcro at the center to reveal the contents of the hiding location. In the training phase, a 56- els of IJA) would be related to the emergence of early EF during this period. cm ⫻ 43-cm white poster board was placed on the top of the apparatus to occlude all but the center well. Children chose one toy from a set of three to be hidden. Once children demonstrated that Method they could retrieve a conspicuously hidden toy placed inside the center well, the experimenter placed the toy inside the center well Participants and sealed the Velcro cover. The experimenter then covered the hiding apparatus with a 76-cm ⫻ 50-cm foam poster board and Participants from a midsized southeastern U.S. city were re- counted aloud to 10. Children passed training once they broke the cruited from a database of parents expressing interest in partici- pating in child development research. The final sample consisted Velcro seal at the center hiding location. For all trials, children of 47 children (25 boys, 22 girls) who participated in the longitu- were rewarded for correct search with praise and play time with dinal study at 14 and 18 months of age. Five children were the toy. In the testing phase, A and B trials were similar to training trials, excluded from the final sample because they failed to return for the second visit (n ⫽ 4) or because task performance was influenced except all five hiding locations were visible. Children had to by parental involvement (n ⫽ 1). Parents received a $5 gift card for retrieve the toy at location A correctly three times before they saw each visit, and children received a snack and a toy for participa- the object hidden at a new location (location B). Hiding locations were counterbalanced, with the stipulations that the center well tion. The mean age at Time 1 was 14.38 months (SD ⫽ 0.34 months, range ⫽ 13.77–15.10 months), and the mean age at Time was never used as a hiding location and location B was located on 2 was 18.48 months (SD ⫽ 0.35 months, range ⫽ 17.84–19.25 the opposite side of the midline from location A (see Marcovitch months). The average length of time between the first and second & Zelazo, 2006). At the beginning of each test trial, the experi- menter brought children’s attention to the center by tapping the toy visit was 4.12 months (SD ⫽ 0.28 months, range ⫽ 3.57–4.79 months). Of the final sample, approximately 38% self-reported as at the midpoint of the testing apparatus. The experimenter then hid Caucasian, 7% as African American, 4% as Asian, 19% as mul- the toy in one of the hiding locations as children watched. Next, tiracial, and 32% did not respond. Thirty-two percent reported the experimenter sealed the Velcro and covered all five hiding locations simultaneously (see Diamond, Cruttenden, & Neider- annual household earnings above $60,000, 34% reported annual household earnings below $60,000, and 34% did not respond. Of man, 1994) with the white poster board and counted to 10. The the 72% of parents who reported on the languages spoken in the hiding apparatus was then presented to children, and they were home, 97% listed English as the primary language, and 3% listed encouraged to search for the object. The first location at which they broke the Velcro seal was counted as their response. If 1 English as the secondary language. children refused to search, the trial was considered incorrect. Procedure Children who searched incorrectly were shown the correct location of the object but were not rewarded with praise or permitted to The same female experimenter presented tasks to children in a play with the toy. B trials were repeated until children retrieved the fixed order at 14 and 18 months to equate order and experimenter object correctly at location B twice or refused to continue to This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.revious work, children were considered to This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.ctly on the first B trial of the (f) object spectacle task, (g) three-boxes task, (h) object spectacle A-not-B task (e.g., Marcovitch & Zelazo, 1999). task, and (i) imitation sorting task. Four 14-month-olds and two Forbidden toy task. First, children shared 3 min of free play 18-month-olds were administered the A-not-B task later in the visit with the experimenter, during which they were invited to play with because they were initially not compliant. Joint attention tasks an available toy (a multicolored Fisher-Price Stack ‘n Surprise were also administered flexibly (e.g., presented later if a child did Blocks Blockity-Pop Caterpillar) but told not to touch an appealing not initially attend to the experimenter), because the experimenter toy (a Fisher-Price GeoTrax train) that was out of close reach. The must be responsive to children’s communicative bids for the items train was activated (i.e., drove around a circular train track) for presented (see Mundy et al., 2003). Parents typically held or sat behind children during testing. Parents were informed that inter- actions of interest would occur between the experimenter and 1On review of the videos, five 14-month-olds and two 18-month-olds broke the seal at two locations simultaneously on at least one trial. When children, and if children attempted interaction with them, they eye gaze, touch, and dominant hand approach were scored from the video, should respond in a natural manner and redirect attention to the the location that received the majority of these three behaviors was con- experimenter. sistent with the experimenter’s scoring during the experimental session. EXECUTIVE FUNCTION AND JOINT ATTENTION 105 15 s at the 45-, 105-, and 165-s marks during free play. To ensure Imitation sorting began in level 2 with the introduction of a that children understood the prohibition, each time they touched or second sorting bucket to the children’s left. The experimenter attempted to reach for the toy, the experimenter prohibited them sorted a set of two new toys, the first in the container on the from playing with it (e.g., said, “We can’t play with this toy now, children’s left and the second in the container to their right. The we will play with it later”) and redirected attention to the avail- experimenter then removed the toys, placed them on the center of able toy. At the end of supervised free play, the experimenter the foam base, and encouraged the children to sort. Children’s repeated the prohibition and suggested that children continue to sorting was scored once all toys were placed in a container and was play with the available toy while she left the room for 2 min. The considered correct if they put each toy in a separate bucket. If parent typically remained in the room but was instructed not to children sorted incorrectly or refused to sort, the experimenter respond to children’s inquiries about the train and not to prohibit showed them the sorting process again with the same set. If them from touching it. The train was activated for 20 s at the 0- and children failed the sort the second time, the experimenter selected 60-s marks during unsupervised play. Children passed the task if a new set of two toys and repeated the process. Children were they waited the entirety of the trial to interact with the forbidden given a maximum of five sets of toys and were designated as object (e.g., Carlson, 2005). passing and moved on to the next level as soon as they sorted three Three-boxes task. Three distinct boxes were used as hiding sets correctly. Each level followed the same procedure, except the locations (a blue box with a star handle, a yellow box with a circle number of toys increased (e.g., level 3 involved sorting three toys handle, and a red box with a square handle; all handles were into two buckets). Children who were unable to sort three sets approximately 6 cm ⫻ 6 cm). Each box (12 cm length ⫻ 11 cm correctly did not pass the level and did not participate in the task width ⫻ 3.5 cm height) was affixed to a foam base (47 cm further. Children were considered to pass the imitation sorting task length ⫻ 16.5 cm width ⫻ 4.5 cm height) that presented boxes 7.5 if they completed level 2 (i.e., the first level at which they needed cm apart at a slight downward angle toward children. The location to hold information in mind to sort correctly). of the boxes was counterbalanced across children. Children EF reliability. A primary coder scored performance on each watched as the experimenter lifted the lids of all three boxes and EF task from video. A second coder scored 10 randomly selected placed three attractive toys inside them (i.e., three pink plastic videos for 14- and 18-month visits. Interrater reliability for cate- rattles that made noise), one in each box. The experimenter then gorical (kappa) and continuous (intraclass correlation) variables simultaneously replaced the lids and occluded the hiding apparatus with the white foam poster board for 5 s. After the delay, the were greater than .92, except for behavior on the forbidden toy task at 18 months (␬⫽ .73), which reflected disagreement on one out experimenter presented children with the search display and en- of the 10 cases. In instances of disagreement, the primary coder’s couraged them to search. For correct searches, children were data were considered. At 14 months, there were missing data for praised and briefly allowed to play with the toy while the boxes remained out of reach, with the chosen box open. For incorrect the forbidden toy task (n ⫽ 1), the three-boxes task (n ⫽ 2), and the imitation sorting task (n ⫽ 2), which were handled in a searches, children were not rewarded and were shown that the toy pairwise deletion fashion in which all available information was was not in the chosen box. After each search trial, the lid was used for each case. replaced, and the apparatus was occluded for 5 s. Next, the hiding apparatus was again presented to children for search. Searching continued until children retrieved all three objects or until they Joint Attention Measures failed to find a toy for four consecutive trials. Children were considered to pass the task if they found the toy in all three hiding Gaze-following task. This was the measure of RJA used to locations on the three-boxes task (Diamond et al., 1997). evaluate children’s ability to respond to or follow the experiment- er’s request to share attention. In this task, four posters were Imitation sorting task. In this abbreviated version of the located to the left, right, behind left, and behind right of children. imitation sorting task (based on Alp, 1994), the experimenter sorted objects into two clear plastic containers (8 cm in height, The experimenter called a child’s name and touched her own nose 10.5 cm in diameter) mounted on a 47-cm ⫻ 14-cm foam base that to direct the child’s attention to her. The experimenter began with kept the containers 23 cm apart. Each container was designated the poster on the child’s right, turned her entire torso, visually oriented to the poster, pointed, and said the child’s name three This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.returning her gaze to the child. animals) ranging in size from approximately 10 cm ⫻ 6cmto5 The experimenter repeated this for all posters, and at the end of cm ⫻ 5 cm were used for sorting. Children were presented with each trial commented on the target to acknowledge or encourage action in the child (e.g., “Did you see the dog?”). Children re- increasingly difficult levels (i.e., more objects to sort) as the task progressed. At level 1 (training), the sorting bucket (color coun- ceived credit for responding to joint attention if they turned their terbalanced) was always placed to children’s right, and children eyes or head to indicate that they were looking in the intended watched as the experimenter sorted one toy into the right bucket direction of the experimenter. In addition, children received credit for IJA and IJA-higher behaviors if they pointed to the poster to and uttered, “The frog goes in this bucket. Hop, hop, hop.” The toy was removed from the bucket and placed in the center of the foam direct the experimenter’s attention before she showed them the base, and the experimenter encouraged children to imitate by posters. moving the apparatus toward them and saying, “Now, you try.” Children were rewarded with praise and passed level 1 if they 2In the few instances in which children lifted two lids simultaneously, correctly imitated the experimenter by placing the frog in the their responses were determined on the basis of eye gaze or the location bucket three times. they continued to open. 106 MILLER AND MARCOVITCH Object spectacle task. This task was administered three times number of words that parents identified that their children could throughout the study and was the main measure of IJA and IBR in produce and understand. Higher scores reflected better language children. In this task, the experimenter presented children with an ability. active toy (i.e., a wind-up seal that spun a ball, a puppet that the experimenter popped up out of a cone, or a wind-up caterpillar that Results crawled) on the table just out of reach and let it remain active for at least6sor until children requested the toy. The experimenter EF Abilities in the 2nd Year of Life remained silent but attended to children while the toy was active, which allowed children to initiate joint attention (e.g., alternate Descriptive statistics for EF performance at 14 and 18 months of age are displayed in Table 1. The dichotomous measure of passing gaze between toy and experimenter, point to the active toy) or request the toy (e.g., reach for the toy). If children attempted to performance is depicted as the main measure of3EF performance initiate joint attention with the experimenter, the experimenter for ease of comparison (see Carlson, 2005) . Nonparametric sta- tistics appropriate for dichotomous data were applied when exam- provided them with a brief natural response (e.g., “I see!”). If they ining growth from 14 to 18 months (i.e., McNemar chi-squares) or requested the toy by attempting to obtain it, the experimenter moved the toy within reach. At the end of the trial, the toy was examining associations (i.e., phi coefficients) for EF data. Children who did not pass the training phase of a particular task were given to children, and they were permitted to play with it. Each toy considered to have failed the task. For a given task, children were was activated and presented to children three times in a row. It was considered IJA behavior when children alternated looking between only included in longitudinal analyses if they had data at both time points. EF performance was not significantly related to sex at an active toy and the experimenter’s eyes or if they looked to the either age (r s ⬍ .19, ps ⬎.20); therefore, sex was not further experimenter while they were playing with an inactive toy. In addi- ⌽ tion, IJA-higher behaviors (a subscale of total IJA) were coded when considered as a variable in EF analyses. EF task performance and growth. On the A-not-B task, the children pointed to an active toy or held the toy to show the experi- majority of children passed the A trial phase (i.e., completed three menter. IBR behaviors were scored when children requested the toy or action from the experimenter (e.g., reaching/pointing to obtain the A trials successfully), and this significantly increased from 14 to 18 months of age, McNemar ␹ (1, n ⫽ 47) ⫽ 6.67, p ⫽ .01, p ⫺ 1 toy, giving the toy to the experimenter so she would reactivate it). p ⫽ .23, 95% confidence interval (CI) [.07, .40]. Children who Book presentation task. The book presentation task provided 2 children with an opportunity to exhibit IJA behavior. In this task, did not pass the A trial phase were not considered in the measures of B-trial performance because they did not receive a reversal trial the experimenter presented a picture book to children with several (see Diamond et al., 1994). The percentage of children who distinct pictures displayed on the pages and said, “What do you see?” The experimenter waited 20 s, during which children could searched correctly on the first B trial was low at both 14 months initiate episodes of joint attention by pointing to pictures in the and 18 months of age. Although performance improved across this age range, the increase was marginal, McNemar ␹ (1, n ⫽ 32) ⫽ book to share attention with the experimenter. If children pointed spontaneously during this time the experimenter responded natu- 2.50, p ⫽ .11, p ⫺ 1 ⫽ .192 95% CI [⫺.03, .40]. On the rally (e.g., “I see”). After 10 s, the experimenter prompted children forbidden toy task, the percentage of children who refrained from play was low and did not significantly change from 14 to 18 again, asking them what they saw in the book. An IJA-higher 2 behavior was considered to occur when children pointed to a months of age, McNemar ␹ (1, n ⫽ 46) ⫽ 0.00, p ⫽ 1.0, p ⫺ 1 picture to during the 20 s of the task. p 2 .02, 95% CI [⫺.16, .21]. On the three-boxes task, the majority of children were able to pass the task by 18 months, a Joint attention reliability. First, the primary coder rated joint percentage that significantly increased from 14 to 18 months of attention on 10 tapes provided with the ESCS manual. Intraclass 2 correlations were calculated between the primary coder’s behav- age, McNemar ␹ (1, n ⫽ 45) ⫽ 13.89, p ⬍ .001, p ⫺ p ⫽ 144, 2 95% CI [.24, .65]. Finally, in the imitation sorting task, the ioral ratings and the manual’s established coding. All correlations percentage of children who passed significantly increased from 14 for IJA, IJA-higher behavior, RJA, and IBR were significant at the 2 .005 level or below and were .93, .91, .81, and .72, respectively. to 18 months of age, McNemar ␹ (1, n ⫽ 45) ⫽ 16.06, p ⬍ .001, p 1 p ⫽ 240, 95% CI [.23, .57]. Next, a secondary coder examined 10 randomly selected tapes Cohesion in EF measures and longitudinal stability. There This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. ratings were compared with the primary coder’s ratings. At 14 did not appear to be much cohesion between EF tasks at 14 or 18 This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and months of age, as the majority of associations between EF perfor- months, all correlations were significant at the .005 level or below mance were not significant at either age (r s ⬍ .17, ps ⬎ .26). and were .96 for IJA, .82 for IJA-higher behavior, .84 for RJA, and ⌽ .80 for IBR. Finally, at 18 months, all correlations were significant Only performance on the imitation sorting task was related to performance on the forbidden toy task at 14 months (r ⫽⌽.32, p ⫽ at the .005 level or below and were .95 for IJA, .73 for IJA-higher .03; see Tables 2 and 3). The only task that demonstrated longi- behavior, .80 for RJA, and .92 for IBR. There were no missing data for joint attention measures at either time point. tudinal stability from 14 to 18 months of age was the imitation MacArthur-Bates CDI. Parents also completed the “Words sorting task (r⌽⫽ .42, p ⫽ .01). Performance was not related from 14 to 18 months for the A-not-B task (r ⫽ .04, p ⫽ .83), the and Gestures” MacArthur-Bates CDIs parent report (Fenson et al., ⌽ 2007). This measure is typically administered to parents of 8- to forbidden toy task (r ⫽⌽.18, p ⫽ .23), or the three-boxes task 18-month-old children and asks parents about children’s under- (r⌽⫽ .04, p ⫽ .80). standing of early vocabulary and symbolic gestures. The vocabu- lary production and vocabulary comprehension subscales were 3Continuous measures of performance on EF tasks were also measured used in the present study and were calculated by summing the total and analyzed and yielded similar results. EXECUTIVE FUNCTION AND JOINT ATTENTION 107 Table 1 Descriptive Statistics for All Measures at 14 and 18 Months Measure 14 months 18 months M (SE) 95% CI Range n M (SE) 95% CI Range n Executive function measures (proportion passing task) A-not-B A trials .72 (.07) [.58, .86] 0–1 47 .96 (.03) [.89, 1.03] 0–1 47 First B trial .09 (.05) [⫺.02, .20] 0–1 34 .29 (.07) [.15, .43] 0–1 45 Forbidden toy .26 (.06) [.12, .40] 0–1 46 .28 (.07) [.14, .42] 0–1 47 Three-boxes .22 (.06) [.09, .35] 0–1 45 .66 (.07) [.51, .81] 0–1 47 Imitation sorting .22 (.06) [.09, .35] 0–1 45 .62 (.07) [.47, .77] 0–1 47 Total EF tasks passed .73 (.13) [.47, .98] 0–3 44 1.83 (.14) [1.55, 2.11] 0–4 47 Joint attention and language measures IJA IJA total 9.45 (.80) [7.82, 11.07] 1–25 47 8.15 (.54) [7.06, 9.24] 0–18 47 IJA-higher/lower ratio .13 (.03) [.07, .19] 0–1 47 .15 (.03) [.10, .20] 0–.67 47 RJA total 2.47 (.16) [2.14, 2.80] 0–4 47 3.47 (.13) [3.20, 3.73] 0–4 47 IBR total 9.09 (.47) [8.13, 10.04] 1–19 47 8.45 (.45) [7.54, 9.35] 3–14 47 Language Measures CDI comprehension 125.49 (11.20) [102.88, 148.10] 15–304 43 245.09 (13.45) [217.97, 272.21] 45–390 44 CDI production 18.28 (2.28) [13.68, 22.88] 0–67 43 91.52 (11.82) [67.69, 115.35] 48–390 44 Note. N ⫽ 47. CI ⫽ confidence interval; EF ⫽ executive function; IJA ⫽ initiating joint attention; RJA ⫽ responding to joint attention; IBR ⫽ initiating behavioral requests; CDI ⫽ MacArthur-Bates Communicative Development Inventories (Fenson et al., 2007). like alternating gaze and pointing) marginally decreased from 14 Joint Attention and Language Abilities in the 2nd Year of Life to 18 months of age, t(46) ⫽⫺ 1.76, p ⫽ .09, Cohen’s d ⫽ .26. We also examined the IJA-higher ratio (IJA-higher behaviors/total Descriptive statistics for performance on joint attention and language measures at 14 and 18 months are displayed in Table 1. number of IJA behaviors), because it was recommended by Mundy and Gomes (1998) to measure children’s tendency to use higher Measures of joint attention performance and language were con- tinuous, as specified by the ESCS (Mundy et al., 2003) and CDI level IJA behaviors (e.g., protodeclarative pointing). The IJA ratio (Fenson et al., 2007), and parametric statistics were used to ex- did not change from 14 to 18 months, t(46) ⫽ .58, p ⫽ .57, Cohen’s d ⫽ .08. RJA behaviors (i.e., behaviors related to sharing amine growth from 14 to 18 months (i.e., paired t tests) and associations (i.e., simple bivariate correlations) between joint at- attention initiated by an adult, such as following an adult’s gaze) tention and language measures. Children were only included in significantly increased from 14 to 18 months of age, t(46) ⫽ 5.64, longitudinal analyses if they had data at both time points. Joint p ⬍ .001, Cohen’s d ⫽ .82, whereas total measures of IBR (i.e., attention abilities and language were not significantly related to behaviors related to requesting an object initiated by the child) did not significantly change from 14 to 18 months of age, sex at either age (rs ⬍ .22, ps ⬎.15); therefore, sex was not further considered as a variable in joint attention and language analyses. t(46) ⫽⫺ 1.05, p ⫽ .30, Cohen’s d ⫽ .15. Finally, there was Joint attention and language performance and growth. significant growth in parent report of both language comprehen- IJA-total behaviors (i.e., child-initiated sharing attention behaviors sion, t(40) ⫽ 12.71, p ⬍ .001, Cohen’s d ⫽ 1.98, and language Table 2 Correlations Among Measures at 14 Months This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article iMeasureded solely for1the per2onal use 3f the ind4vidual use5 and is no6 to be dis7eminated b8oadly. 9 10 11 1. Sex — .09 ⫺.05 .18 .05 ⫺.12 ⫺.04 .13 .21 ⫺.10 ⫺.14 2. A-not-B — .03 ⫺.19 .04 ⫺.04 ⫺.07 .12 ⫺.15 ⫺.30 † ⫺.03 3. Forbidden toy — .16 .32 ⫺.17 .05 .16 .12 .13 ⫺.07 4. Three-boxes — ⫺.12 ⫺.34 ⴱ .11 ⫺.04 .30ⴱ .20 .02 5. Imitation sorting — ⫺.03 ⫺.08 .34 .11 .01 .01 6. IJA total — ⫺.16 .21 ⫺.23 ⫺.13 .10 7. IJA ratio — ⫺.20 ⫺.04 .07 .15 8. RJA total — ⫺.03 .12 ⫺.09ⴱ 9. IBR total — .11 .39 10. CDI comprehension — .24 11. CDI production — Note. Phi coefficients are reported for correlations between dichotomous data; otherwise, Pearson correlations areIJAinitiating joint attention; RJA ⫽ responding to joint attention; IBR⫽ initiatingbehavioral requeI MacArthur-Bates Communicative Development InventorFieesn(son et al., 200)7. †p ⱕ .10. ⴱp ⱕ .05. 108 MILLER AND MARCOVITCH Table 3 Correlations Among Measures at 18 Months Measure 1 2 3 4 5 6 71 80 91 1 1. Sex — ⫺.19 .10 .14 ⫺.04 .08 ⫺.20 .06 ⫺.21 ⫺.07 .06 2. A-not-B — ⫺.08 .06 ⫺.01 ⫺.08ⴱ ⫺.08 .15 .13ⴱ .02 ⫺.05 3. Forbidden toy — .04 .00 .29† ⫺.14 ⫺.01 † ⫺.33 .08 ⫺.11 4. Three-boxes — .08 ⫺.25 ⫺.03 .28 ⫺.03 .11 .03 5. Imitation sorting — ⫺.09 .10 .12 ⫺.14 .12 ⫺.10 6. IJA total — ⫺.22 ⫺.02 ⫺.18 ⫺.20 ⫺.02 7. IJA ratio — .12 ⫺.17 .32 .15 8. RJA total — ⫺.17 .13 .27 9. IBR total — ⫺.24 ⫺.20 10. CDI comprehension — .49ⴱ 11. CDI production — Note. Phi coefficients are reported for correlations between dichotomous data; otherwise, Pearson correlations are reported. IJA ⫽ initiating joint attention; RJA ⫽ responding to joint attention; IBR ⫽ initiating behavioral requests; CDI ⫽ MacArthur-Bates Communicative Development Inventories (Fenson et al., 2007). † p ⱕ .10. ⴱp ⱕ .05. ⴱⴱp ⱕ .01. production, t(40) ⫽ 6.80, p ⬍ .001, Cohen’s d ⫽ 1.06, from 14 to to the three-boxes task at 14 months, r(43) ⫽⫺ .34, p ⫽ .02, and 18 months of age. 18 months, r(45) ⫽⫺ .25, p ⫽ .09. Correlations between joint attention and language Although we hypothesized that it was unlikely that non-IJA measures. Relationships between joint attention measures dem- behaviors would be related to EF (see, e.g., Nichols, Fox, & onstrated that dimensions of joint attention were distinct and Mundy, 2005), this was not entirely supported. RJA was positively unrelated, similar to the findings of previous studies of joint related to performance on the imitation sorting task at 14 months, attention using the ESCS (e.g., Mundy et al., 2007). At both 14 r(43) ⫽ .34 p ⫽ .02, and marginally related to performance on the months (see Table 2) and 18 months (see Table 3), none of the three-boxes task at 18 months, r(45) ⫽ .28 p ⫽ .06. IBR was distinct joint attention measures were related to each other, positively related to performance on the three-boxes task at 14 rs(45) ⬍ .22, ps ⬎ .11. Regarding language measures, only IBR months, r(43) ⫽ .30, p ⫽ .05, and negatively related to perfor-


Buy Material

Are you sure you want to buy this material for

25 Karma

Buy Material

BOOM! Enjoy Your Free Notes!

We've added these Notes to your profile, click here to view them now.


You're already Subscribed!

Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'

Why people love StudySoup

Steve Martinelli UC Los Angeles

"There's no way I would have passed my Organic Chemistry class this semester without the notes and study guides I got from StudySoup."

Janice Dongeun University of Washington

"I used the money I made selling my notes & study guides to pay for spring break in Olympia, Washington...which was Sweet!"

Jim McGreen Ohio University

"Knowing I can count on the Elite Notetaker in my class allows me to focus on what the professor is saying instead of just scribbling notes the whole time and falling behind."

Parker Thompson 500 Startups

"It's a great way for students to improve their educational experience and it seemed like a product that everybody wants, so all the people participating are winning."

Become an Elite Notetaker and start selling your notes online!

Refund Policy


All subscriptions to StudySoup are paid in full at the time of subscribing. To change your credit card information or to cancel your subscription, go to "Edit Settings". All credit card information will be available there. If you should decide to cancel your subscription, it will continue to be valid until the next payment period, as all payments for the current period were made in advance. For special circumstances, please email


StudySoup has more than 1 million course-specific study resources to help students study smarter. If you’re having trouble finding what you’re looking for, our customer support team can help you find what you need! Feel free to contact them here:

Recurring Subscriptions: If you have canceled your recurring subscription on the day of renewal and have not downloaded any documents, you may request a refund by submitting an email to

Satisfaction Guarantee: If you’re not satisfied with your subscription, you can contact us for further help. Contact must be made within 3 business days of your subscription purchase and your refund request will be subject for review.

Please Note: Refunds can never be provided more than 30 days after the initial purchase date regardless of your activity on the site.