The ‘Executive Functions’ (EFs) of inhibitory control, working memory, and cognitive flexibility enable us to think before we act, resist temptations or habitual reactions, stay focused, mentally play with ideas, reason, problem-solve, flexibly adjust to changed demands or priorities, and see things from new and different perspectives. These skills are critical for success in all life’s aspects. They are sometimes more predictive than even IQ or socioeconomic status. Understandably, there is great interest in improving EFs. It’s now clear they can be improved at any age through training and practice, much as physical exercise hones physical fitness. It also appears though, despite claims to the contrary, that wide transfer does not seem to occur and aerobic exercise per se does little to improve EFs. Important questions remain including: Are benefits just ephemeral and superficial? How much can EFs be improved and how long can benefits be sustained? What are the best methods for improving EFs? What about an approach accounts for its success? Do the answers to any of these differ by individual characteristics such as age or gender? Since stress, sadness, loneliness, or poor health impair EFs, and the reverse enhances EFs, I predict that approaches that not only directly train EFs but also indirectly support EFs by addressing emotional, social, and physical needs will be the most successful at improving EFs.

This systematic review of executive function (EF) interventions is the largest such review thus far, including 179 studies from all over the world, reported in 193 papers. It covers all the ways that have been tried to improve EFs, including computerized and noncomputerized cognitive training, neurofeedback, school programs, physical activities, mindfulness practices, and miscellaneous approaches (e.g., drama and Experience Corps), at all ages. A little studied approach—mindfulness practices involving movement (such as taekwondo and t’ai chi)—shows the best results for improving EFs. Promising school programs are second. Both approaches show better results than any cognitive training. Third best at improving EFs is noncomputerized cognitive training. Perhaps these three approaches show better results than computerized training because they involve more in-person trainer-trainee interaction. The best-performing computerized cognitive-training method for improving EFs is Cogmed®. Support was lacking for claims that N-back training improves fluid intelligence. Resistance training and “plain” aerobic-exercise interventions (e.g., running or walking) show the least evidence of benefit to EFs of all methods. Results for aerobic exercise with more cognitive or motor-skill challenges are only slightly better. This probably reflects how physical-activity interventions have been structured, rather than that physical activity does not benefit EFs. For any intervention, trainers’ ability to make the training activity enjoyable and to communicate their unwavering faith in participants and the program plus the activity being personally meaningful and relevant, inspiring commitment and emotional investment in participants to the activity and to one another is probably what is most important.

No abstract

We previously reported better performance on the Day-Night task when a ditty was chanted between stimulus presentation and when children could respond (Diamond, Kirkham, & Amso, 2002). Here we investigated competing hypotheses about why the ditty helps. Does it help because it imposes a brief waiting time (the child waits while the ditty is chanted before responding)? Or, does the ditty help because of its content, providing information helpful to performing the task? One-third of the 72 children (age 4) were tested with the ditty previously used which reminds them: “Think about the answer; don't tell me.” Another 24 children were tested with a ditty with no task-relevant content: “I hope you have a nice time; I like you.” One-third received the standard condition. Performance in both ditty conditions was comparable and better than in the standard condition. That indicates that a factor common to both ditties (that chanting them took time, allowing the prepotent response to subside and the more-considered answer to reach response threshold) likely accounts for their benefit. Whether a ditty reminded children what to do or not did not affect the results. The challenge of the Day-Night task for preschoolers is not its working memory demands but the need to inhibit a dominant response, making a different response instead.

No abstract