Preschoolers can be instructed to use proactive control

Gonthier, Corentin; Blaye, Agnès

doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2022.101175

Cited by 6 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, it appears that learning a collective body of task knowledge leads to a further shift towards engaging proactive control as well as efficient engagement of cognitive control (e.g., faster response times) in the similar-structured task with different stimuli. Indeed, recent studies showed that prior task experience boosts proactive control engagement in 5-year-olds who begin to engage proactive control (Yanaoka et al, 2022) and in 4-to 6-year-olds (Gonthier & Blaye, 2022). In contrast, Experiment 3 did not observe consistent positive transfer effects in adults across training and test phases (i.e., no significant differences in PBI scores).…”

Section: Positive Transfer Effects Of Task Knowledgementioning

confidence: 86%

Evidence for positive and negative transfer of abstract task knowledge in adults and school-aged children

Yanaoka,

van’t Wout,

Saito

et al. 2024

Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Positive Transfer Effects Of Task Knowledgementioning

confidence: 86%

Evidence for positive and negative transfer of abstract task knowledge in adults and school-aged children

Yanaoka,

van’t Wout,

Saito

et al. 2024

Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Although greater resources (e.g., increased working memory load) are required to engage proactive control, the shift from youth spontaneously preferencing proactive control rather than relying on reactive control increases throughout childhood. However, once instructed to do so, children as young as preschool age are able to engage in proactive control (Gonthier & Blaye, 2022 ). For instance, anticipating possible interferences in attention from classmates (proactive control) may reduce the frequency of distraction, however reliance on redirection of attention back to a task following distraction (reactive control) is less cognitively demanding.…”

Section: Underlying Processes (C and D)mentioning

confidence: 99%

An Expanded Conceptual Framework for Understanding Irritability in Childhood: The Role of Cognitive Control Processes

Elvin,

Modecki,

Waters

2024

Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Children prone to irritability experience significant functional impairments and internalising and externalising problems. Contemporary models have sought to elucidate the underlying mechanisms in irritability, such as aberrant threat and reward biases to improve interventions. However, the cognitive control processes that underlie threat (e.g., attention towards threats) and reward (e.g., attention towards reward-related cues) biases and the factors which influence the differential activation of positive and negative valence systems and thus leading to maladaptive activation of cognitive control processes (i.e., proactive and reactive control) are unclear. Thus, we aim to integrate extant theoretical and empirical research to elucidate the cognitive control processes underlying threat and reward processing that contribute to irritability in middle childhood and provide a guiding framework for future research and treatment. We propose an expanded conceptual framework of irritability that includes broad intraindividual and environmental vulnerability factors and propose proximal ‘setting’ factors that activate the negative valence and positive valence systems and proactive and reactive cognitive control processes which underpin the expression and progression of irritability. We consider the implications of this expanded conceptualisation of irritability and provide suggestions for future research.

show abstract

“…Cognitive control gradually evolves from a reactive, cue-dependent and contextually influenced mode, to a more proactive and anticipatory mode which is less dependent on the context ( Braver, 2012 ; Munakata et al, 2012 ; Chevalier et al, 2017 ). Recent research shows that children aged 4–6 cannot yet use proactive control spontaneously ( Gonthier and Blaye, 2022 ). The shift from reactive to proactive control, which is observed around the age of 6, reflects progress in SRL abilities, including goal choice ( Blackwell and Munakata, 2014 ; Zelazo, 2015 ; Gonthier et al, 2019 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Goal choice in preschoolers is influenced by context, cognitive flexibility, and metacognition

Leclercq

Gimenes²,

Maintenant³

et al. 2023

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionGoal choice is one of the first, and most important, steps in self-regulated learning (SRL). It is particularly challenging for young children (before 5–6 years), who tend to rely on available environmental cues, which makes their goals fragile because of the instability and variability of the environment. Therefore, it can be assumed that the conditions under which a task is performed may influence a child’s learning goal choice. Moreover, adapting to constraints involves control capacities provided by executive functions (EF) and metacognition.MethodsThe main purpose of this study was to determine factors that influence the way preschoolers choose a learning goal during the first step of SRL. We tested whether adding constraints to perform a task may influence the choice of the procedure that a child aims to learn to perform this task. We also examined the role of cognitive flexibility and metacognition in goal selection in the face of these changes, and tested the influence of change over time, comparing participants’ performance at two points in the school year. One hundred 4-year-olds were asked to perform a jigsaw puzzle task under two conditions: predictable vs. unpredictable environmental change. Individual levels of cognitive flexibility and metacognition were also measured.ResultsThe results show that only a predictable change, but not an unpredictable one, leaded children to change their learning goals. Furthermore, when participants were faced with an unpredictable change, metacognition and cognitive flexibility significantly predicted learning goal change. Results are discussed regarding the development of SRL, flexibility, and metacognition. Educational suggestions are proposed.Highlights– The choice of a learning goal by a preschooler is influenced by the conditions of task performance and environmental cues. Facing a predictable change is more disruptive to children before the age of 4.5, and more likely to cause them to change their goal.– A shift is observed, from age 4 and during the school year, from a perceptual to a conceptual level of processing.– Cognitive flexibility and metacognition also determine learning goal choice in preschoolers, but only in front of unpredictable changes.

show abstract

Preschoolers can be instructed to use proactive control

Cited by 6 publications

References 50 publications

Evidence for positive and negative transfer of abstract task knowledge in adults and school-aged children

Evidence for positive and negative transfer of abstract task knowledge in adults and school-aged children

An Expanded Conceptual Framework for Understanding Irritability in Childhood: The Role of Cognitive Control Processes

Goal choice in preschoolers is influenced by context, cognitive flexibility, and metacognition

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About