VALIDATING NEURAL MARKERS OF
EFFORTFUL CONTROL IN YOUNG CHILDREN
By
Sharon Lee Lo

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Psychology – Doctor of Philosophy
2017

ABSTRACT
VALIDATING NEURAL MARKERS OF
EFFORTFUL CONTROL IN YOUNG CHILDREN
By
Sharon Lee Lo
Effortful control (EC) in early childhood is a robust predictor of later mental health, socialemotional adjustment, and academic performance. EC is defined as the ability to regulate behavioral
and emotional reactivity, and develops most rapidly during preschool-age years, a time recognized as
a critical period to intervene and prevent later psychopathology. However, we have little to no
knowledge of the basic etiological processes underlying EC in young children, which precludes the
development of effective interventions based on mechanisms of action. Mastery of EC skills is
reliant on the successful integration of brain processes underlying neural and behavioral systems,
and event-related potentials (ERPs) represent a confluence of these systems, making it an ideal tool
to understand the neurobehavioral underpinnings of EC in children. Two common conflictmonitoring ERPs known as the error-related negativity (ERN) and N2 are thought to index aspects
of EC in children, but the nature and function of these markers is not understood.
The present study used a short-term targeted training of effortful control (EC) as an
experimental manipulation to address whether (1) the ERN and N2 are valid markers of EC in
young children (aged 4-5 years), and (2) whether training-induced changes in EC as indexed by
behavioral and neural measures are associated with changes in social-emotional adjustment
problems. While results across behavioral, neurophysiological, and informant-reported methods
indicated that EC skills were not substantially impacted by targeted EC training, they also suggested
that the ERN and N2 may be dynamic measures of EC skills in young children, and may reflect
similar processes in this age period. Future research would benefit from developing measures that

ii

are more sensitive to detecting changes in EC skills during this age period in order to better
understand the coherence between brain and behavior processes that support the maturation of EC.

iii

Copyright by
SHARON LEE LO
2017

This manuscript is dedicated to the Lo family.
Thank you for always encouraging me to be myself and to do my best.

v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to thank my mentors Dr. C. Emily Durbin and Dr. Jason S. Moser for providing guidance
and direction throughout my graduate school career, and comments on drafts of this manuscript.
I greatly appreciate the research assistants, children, and families who made data collection for
the present investigation possible.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES

x

LIST OF FIGURES

xiv

INTRODUCTION
Effortful Control in Childhood
Dimensions of effortful control.
Correlates of behavioral measures of effortful control.
Neurophysiological Indices of Effortful Control in Youth
Correlates of neurophysiological measures of effortful control.
Targeted Training and Intervention Studies

1
1
2
3
5
7
10

PRESENT STUDY

14

HYPOTHESES

15

METHODS
Sample

17
17
18
19
19
19
20
20
20
20
21
21
21
22
22
22
22
23
23

Inclusion/exclusion criteria.
Timeline and assessments.
Measures
Behavioral measures of EC.
Behavioral measures of attentional control skills.
Digit Span (Weschler, 2003).
Reverse Categorization (Carlson, Mandell, & Williams, 2004).
Dimensional Charge Card Sort (DCCS; Zelazo, 2006).
Day/Night (Gerstadt, Hong, & Diamond, 1994).
Shape Stroop (Kochanska et al., 2000).
Flexible Item Selection Task (FIST; Jacques & Zelazo, 2001).
Tower of Hanoi (Welsh, 1999).
Yes/No (Wolfe & Bell, 2004).
Behavioral measures of inhibitory control skills.
Walk-a-line Slowly (Murray & Kochanska, 2002).
Simon Says (Strommen, 1973).
Hand Game (Hughes, 1998).
Bear Dragon (Kochanska, Murray, Jacques, Koenig, &
Vandegeest, 1996).
Knock-Tap (Klenberg, Korkman, & Lahti-Nuuttila, 2001).
Snack Delay (Goldsmith et al., 1995).
Head Toes Knees Shoulders (HTKS; McClelland & Cameron,
2012).
Whisper Game (Carlson et al., 2004).
Transfer type.
Assessment of cognitive ability and academic achievement.
vii

23
23
24
24
24
25
25

Informant-reported measures.
Neurophysiological assessment of EC.
Go/No-Go task.
Flanker task.
Neurophysiological Recording and Data Reduction
Time-locked error-related event-related potentials.
Stimulus-locked event-related potentials.
Training Procedures
Training structure.

26
26
26
27
28
29
29
30
30

RESULTS
Power Analyses
Randomization Checks
Behavioral Measures of EC
Near transfer tasks.
Intermediate transfer tasks.
Far-intermediate transfer tasks.
Interim summary of results from behavioral measures of EC.
Neurophysiological Measures of EC
Behavioral performance.
ERN.
N2.
Interim summary of results from neurophysiological measures of EC.
Informant-reported Measures of EC
Parent report of EC skills.
Parent report of social-emotional functioning.
Teacher report of EC skills.
Teacher report of social-emotional functioning.
Interim summary of results from informant-reported measures of EC.
Associations Between Behavioral, Neural, and Parent-reported Measures of EC
Neurophysiological and behavioral measures of EC.
Behavioral tasks tapping attentional control skills.
Behavioral tasks tapping inhibitory control skills.
Neurophysiological measures of EC and parent-reported measures.
Parent report of EC skills.
Parent report of social-emotional behaviors.
Behavioral and parent-reported measures of EC and social-emotional behaviors
Behavioral tasks tapping attentional control skills and parent-reported
measures.
Behavioral tasks tapping inhibitory control skills and parent-reported
measures.
Interim summary of associations across methodologies.

32
32
33
34
34
35
35
36
36
36
37
37
38
39
39
40
40
41
41
41
42
42
43
43
43
43
44

DISCUSSION
Main Effects Within Method Type
Behavioral Measures of EC.
Neurophysiological Measures of EC.
Informant-reported Measures.

46
47
47
47
49

viii

44
44
44

Associations Between Changes in Multimethod Measures Across Time
Behavioral and Neurophysiological Measures of EC.
Parent-Reported Measures of Adjustment and Neurophysiological
Measures of EC.
Behavioral Measures of EC and Parent-Reported Measures of Adjustment.
Limitations
Future Directions
Conclusions
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A TABLES
APPENDIX B FIGURES
APPENDIX C A PRIORI PREDICTIONS AND STUDY RESULTS
APPENDIX D MEASURES BY TRANSFER TYPE
APPENDIX E SAMPLE SCHEDULE OF TRAINING DAY
APPENDIX F DESCRIPTION OF TIME-LOCKED AND
STIMULUS-LOCKED EVENT-RELATED POTENTIAL ANALYSES
APPENDIX G CORRELATED CHANGE ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN
EVENT-RELATED POTENTIALS AND BEHAVIORAL PERFORMANCE
APPENDIX H SCATTERPLOTS OF SIGNIFICANT AND TREND-LEVEL
CORRELATED CHANGE ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN METHOD
APPENDIX I BIVARIATE CORRELATIONS BETWEEN METHOD WITHIN
TIME POINT
REFERENCES

51
51
52
52
53
56
59
60
61
81
89
91
94
96
101
104
110
125

ix

LIST OF TABLES

Table A1
Sample Size, Age, and Sex of Total Sample Presented by Wave and Sample Number

62

Table A2
Performance on Cognitive and Academic Achievement Measures

63

Table A3
Descriptive Statistics of Behavioral Task Performance Across Different Transfer Levels in
Training and Control Groups from Baseline to Post-Assessment

64

Table A4
Mixed Repeated Measure ANOVA Results for Behavioral Task Measures

65

Table A5
Descriptive Statistics of Behavioral Performance on Go/No-Go and Flanker Tasks in Training
and Control Groups from Baseline to Post-Assessment
66
Table A6
Mixed Repeated Measure ANOVA results for Behavioral Performance on Go/No-Go and
Flanker Tasks

67

Table A7
Descriptive Statistics of Response-Locked and Stimulus-Locked Event-Related Potentials on
Go/No-Go and Flanker Tasks in Training and Control Groups from Baseline to
Post-Assessment

68

Table A8
Mixed Repeated Measure ANOVA Results for Event-Related Potentials Elicited by Go/No-Go
and Flanker Tasks
69
Table A9
Descriptive Statistics of Parent-Reported Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function and
Child Behavior Checklist Raw Scores in Training and Control Groups from Baseline to 1-Month
Follow-Up
70
Table A10
Mixed Repeated Measure ANOVA Results for Parent-Reported Behavior Rating Inventory of
Executive Function and Child Behavior Checklist
71
Table A11
Descriptive Statistics of Teacher-Reported Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function
and Child Behavior Checklist Raw Scores at 3-Month Follow-up

x

72

Table A12
Bivariate Correlations Between Changes in Neurophysiological Measures of EC and Changes in
Behavioral Measures of Attentional Control from Baseline to Post-Assessment
73
Table A13
Bivariate Correlations Between Changes in Neurophysiological Measures of EC and Changes in
Behavioral Measures of Inhibitory Control from Baseline to Post-Assessment
74
Table A14
Bivariate Correlations Between Changes in Neurophysiological Measures of EC and Changes in
Parent-Reported Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function Scores
75
Table A15
Bivariate Correlations Between Changes in Neurophysiological Measures of EC and Changes in
Parent-Reported Child Behavior Checklist Scores
76
Table A16
Bivariate Correlations Between Changes in Behavioral Measures of Attentional Control and
Changes in Measures of Inhibitory Control from Baseline to Post-Assessment

77

Table A17
Bivariate Correlations Between Changes in Parent-Reported Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive
Functions and Child Behavior Checklist Scores from Baseline to 1-Month Follow-Up
78
Table A18
Bivariate Correlations Between Changes in Behavioral Measures of Attentional Control and
Changes in Parent-Reported Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Functions and Child
Behavior Checklist Scores

79

Table A19
Bivariate Correlations Between Changes in Behavioral Measures of Inhibitory Control and
Changes in Parent-Reported Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Functions and Child
Behavior Checklist Scores

80

Table C1
A Priori Predictions and Study Results

90

Table D1
Near, Intermediate, Far-intermediate, and Far Transfer Measures Collected

92

Table E1
Sample Schedule of a Training Day

95

Table F1
Pre-assessment Means (SD) of Time-Locked and Stimulus-Locked Event-Related Potential
Voltage Amplitudes (µV) for Go/No-Go and Flanker Tasks Across Five Midline Sites

100

xi

Table F2
Post-assessment Means (SD) of Time-Locked and Stimulus-Locked Event-Related Potential
Voltage Amplitudes (µV) for Go/No-Go and Flanker Tasks Across Five Midline Sites

100

Table G1
Associations Between Changes in Go/No-Go Event-Related Potentials and Changes in
Go/No-Go Behavioral Performance

102

Table G2
Associations Between Changes in Flanker Event-Related Potentials and Changes in Flanker
Behavioral Performance

103

Table I1
Baseline Associations Between Go/No-Go Event-Related Potentials and Go/No-Go
Behavioral Performance

111

Table I2
Post-Assessment Associations Between Go/No-Go Event-Related Potentials and Go/No-Go
Behavioral Performance
111
Table I3
Baseline Associations Between Flanker Event-Related Potentials and Flanker Behavioral
Performance

112

Table I4
Post-Assessment Associations Between Flanker Event-Related Potentials and Flanker
Behavioral Performance

112

Table I5
Baseline Associations Between Neurophysiological Measures of Effortful Control and
Behavioral Measures of Attentional Control

113

Table I6
Post-Assessment Associations Between Neurophysiological Measures of Effortful Control and
Behavioral Measures of Attentional Control
114
Table I7
Baseline Associations Between Neurophysiological Measures of Effortful Control and
Behavioral Measures of Inhibitory Control

115

Table I8
Post-Assessment Baseline Associations Between Neurophysiological Measures of Effortful
Control and Behavioral Measures of Inhibitory Control

116

Table I9
Baseline Associations Between Neurophysiological Measures of Effortful Control and ParentReported Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function
117

xii

Table I10
One-Month Follow-Up Associations Between Neurophysiological Measures of Effortful
Control and Parent-Reported Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function

118

Table I11
Baseline Associations Between Neurophysiological Measures of Effortful Control and ParentReported Child Behavior Checklist
119
Table I12
One-Month Follow-Up Associations Between Neurophysiological Measures of Effortful
Control and Parent-Reported Child Behavior Checklist

120

Table I13
Baseline Associations Between Behavioral Measures of Attentional Control and Inhibitory
Control

121

Table I14
Post-Assessment Associations Between Behavioral Measures of Attentional Control and
Inhibitory Control

122

Table I15
Baseline Associations Between Parent-Reported Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive
Functions and Child Behavior Checklist Scores

123

Table I16
One-Month Follow-Up Associations Between Parent-Reported Behavior Rating Inventory of
Executive Functions and Child Behavior Checklist Scores
124

xiii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure B1. Top: Treasure map slide on the Flanker task. Bottom: Sample trials of the
Flanker task.

82

Figure B2. Graphical depiction of mean-level changes in behavioral tasks designed to measure
attentional control skills from baseline to post-assessment in training (green) compared to control
group (black). Standard error bars are shown. DCCS = Dimensional Card Change Sort. FIST =
Flexible Item Selection Task.
83
Figure B3. Graphical depiction of mean-level changes in behavioral tasks designed to measure
inhibitory control skills from baseline to post-assessment in training (green) compared to control
group (black). Standard error bars are shown. HTKS = Head-Toes-Knees-Shoulders Task.
84
Figure B4. Error-related brain activity for Go/No-Go (left) and Flanker (right) tasks in training
(green) compared to control (black) groups at baseline (solid line) and post-assessment (dashed line)
time points. Time 0 represents responses onset.
85
Figure B5. Stimulus-locked brain activity on high conflict trials for Go/No-Go (left) and Flanker
(right) tasks in training (green) compared to control (black) groups at baseline (solid line) and postassessment (dashed line) time points. Time 0 represents stimulus onset.
86
Figure B6. Graphical depiction of mean-level changes in parent-reported Behavior Rating
Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF) scores across baseline, 1-month follow-up, and
3-month follow-up time points in training (green) compared to control group (black). Standard
error bars are shown.
87
Figure B7. Graphical depiction of mean-level changes in parent-reported Child Behavior Checklist
(CBCL) scores across baseline, 1-month follow-up, and 3-month follow-up time points in training
(green) compared to control group (black). Standard error bars are shown.
88
Figure H1. Increase in Go/No-Go ERN over time is associated with greater improvements in
total FIST score.
105
Figure H2. Reduction in Go/No-Go ERN over time is associated with greater improvements in
DCCS border score.
105
Figure H3. Reduction in Flanker ∆N2 over time is associated with greater improvements in DCCS
border score.
106
Figure H4. Reduction in Go/No-Go ∆ERN over time is associated with greater improvements in
HTKS task.
106
Figure H5. Reduction in Flanker ∆N2 over time is associated with greater improvements in HTKS
task.
107

xiv

Figure H6. Increases in Go/No-Go N2 over time is associated with fewer parent-reported social
problems.
107
Figure H7. Increases in the Go/No-Go ERN over time is associated with fewer parent-reported
problems with rule breaking.
108
Figure H8. Increases in the Go/No-Go ERN over time is associated with fewer parent-reported
social problems.
108
Figure H9. Reduction in Flanker ∆N2 is associated with fewer parent-reported problems with rule
breaking.
109

xv

INTRODUCTION
Individual differences in effortful control (EC) are implicated in the development of
psychopathologies that have detrimental personal and societal costs (Caspi, 1996; Moffitt et al.,
2011). They are more strongly associated with school readiness as compared to IQ and initial
academic competencies (Blair & Razza, 2007). EC skills develop most rapidly during early childhood
(Rothbart, 1989) and involve emotional and cognitive control processes that regulate behavioral and
emotional reactivity (Rothbart, Ellis, Rueda, & Posner, 2003). Variation in EC skills in early
childhood is a robust predictor of major life outcomes in adulthood related to physical and mental
health, financial status, crime conviction, and academic achievement, even after controlling for IQ
and social class (Moffitt et al., 2011). These clear public health implications of targeting EC in
childhood have placed pressure on researchers to design effective interventions based on basic
mechanisms underlying EC development. Although evidence has shown that mastery of EC skills is
dependent on brain processes and integration of underlying behavioral and neural systems (Whittle,
Allen, Lubman, & Yücel, 2006), this area of research is underdeveloped in young children. Two
event-related potentials (ERPs) assessing conflict-monitoring aspects of EC, the Error-Related
Negativity (ERN) and N2, have been assessed in children (Yeung, Botvinick, & Cohen, 2004), but
the nature and function of these neural markers is not well understood. The present study aimed to
use an experimental manipulation to test the functional validity of proposed neurophysiological
markers of EC in young children.
Effortful Control in Childhood
The temperament and cognitive neuroscience literatures have created a number of terms to
describe the ability to control and regulate thoughts, emotions, and behaviors. Broadly, regulation
occurs through voluntary control such as purposefully inhibiting a response or via non-voluntary
means such as fear. Self-regulation refers to the ability to modulate reactivity, and is often used in

1

developmental psychology alongside EC. EC is one of the fundamental dimensions of temperament
defined as the capacity to regulate reactive processes, such as emotion, and to purposefully suppress
a predominant response and execute a subordinate one (Rothbart, Ellis, Rueda, & Posner, 2003). EC
is thought to involve two important facets of self-regulation known as attentional control and
inhibitory control. Attentional control refers to the ability to effectively allocate one’s attention in a
flexible manner while inhibitory control refers to the capacity to regulate and resist pre-potent
behavioral impulses or responses.
“Executive attention”, “executive control”, “cognitive control”, and “self-control” are terms
commonly used in neurocognitive research that refer to a critical component of a broader construct
known as executive functioning. In an attempt to bridge developmental and cognitive neuroscience
literatures, the terms “attentional control”, “inhibitory control”, and “effortful control (EC)” are
used. While these terms may have different origins compared to the terms used in the cognitive
literature, there does not appear to be a firm distinction between these measures of EC given that
they all involve the ability to control dominant responses in favor of selecting less dominant ones.
The integration of neural networks responsible for modulating cognition and emotion are thought
to play a role in attentional and inhibitory control processes; and the basic link between these
processes is the primary contributor to adaptive EC functioning.
Dimensions of effortful control. Increasing evidence suggests that attentional control and
inhibitory control represent two separate dimensions of EC (e.g., Carver et al., 2008; Oldehinkel,
Hartman, De Winter, Veenstra, & Ormel, 2004), and are found to differentially predict behavior
problems and academic performance (Kim, Nordling, Yoon, Boldt, & Kochanska, 2012). However,
the ways in which attentional and inhibitory control vary as a function of temperamental reactivity
and influence behavioral and social emotional outcomes in children are largely unexplored. Some
reviews indicate that attentional and inhibitory control mechanisms may develop over different time

2

courses (see Diamond, 2013 for a review), but no hypotheses have been tested as to how these
developmental trajectories may differ.
Correlates of behavioral measures of effortful control. Given the importance of early EC
in later life outcomes, researchers have been interested in examining the developmental course of
EC, and its contribution to social-emotional and psychological development. Within the first two
years of life, regulatory behaviors emerge that are important to the development of EC such as
complying to demands and purposefully inhibiting reactive motor responses (Kopp, 1982). EC
becomes increasingly coherent across behavioral EC performance from 2 years of age and beyond;
and expected gender differences (i.e., girls demonstrating higher EC compared to boys) in
behavioral EC performance is observed across a greater number of tasks at 3 years of age
(Kochanska et al., 2000). Following toddlerhood, the preschool years are characterized by
considerable development in the ability to more flexibly engage in regulatory behaviors to meet
different situational demands, and adjust behavior appropriately to changing demands. Children in
this developmental period are able to not only inhibit a predominant response, but also execute the
subordinate action, whereas their younger peers may only be able to effectively inhibit the dominant
action.
Children in the preschool years also tend to experience a substantial increase in social
interactions, and their ability to exert control to modulate their automatic behavior and emotional
reactivity in these situations has important implications for their social-emotional development.
Higher EC in preschool is related to greater social competence, conscience, and empathy (see
Eisenberg, Smith, Sadovsky, & Spinrad, 2004). EC may also support socialization by allowing
children to attend and respond to the emotional distress of others while regulating their own
emotional reactivity. Data from parent- and teacher-reported EC suggests that preschoolers rated
higher in attentional control were more likely to cope with anger using non-hostile methods rather

3

than overt aggression (Eisenberg, Fabes, Nyman, Bernzweig, & Pinuelas, 1994). Young children
with higher levels of EC exhibit less intense positive and negative emotionality on behavioral tasks
designed to elicit variation in emotional reactivity (Kochanska et al., 2000), suggesting that higher
EC is related to more effective regulation of both positive and negative affect.
With respect to the role of EC in predicting psychological adjustment outcomes, studies of
EC in adults indicate that low EC is associated with both internalizing and externalizing problems
(Carver, Johnson, & Joormann, 2008), but this relationship is not as well understood in children.
Evidence from both parent-reported and laboratory-assessed temperament measures suggest that
high EC may be related to fewer concurrent and later externalizing behaviors (e.g., Kochanska &
Knaack, 2004; Wachs & Bates, 2001). Some studies have found that high EC is associated with
regulatory behaviors that allow the child to adapt and cope with frustration (Shoda, Mischel, &
Peake, 1990), whereas other studies suggest that children with high EC are also high in guilt and
shame, a predisposition for developing later depression and anxiety disorders (Rothbart, Ahadi, &
Hershey, 1994). These differing associations hark back to the Blocks’ constructs of ego control and
ego resiliency (Block & Block, 1980), where ego control is defined as a person’s typical tendency to
restrain behavioral impulses, and ego resiliency is defined as a person’s ability to flexibly engage ego
control (i.e., reduce or increase such control) when called upon by differing contexts. Another
hypothesis is that the association between EC and internalizing behaviors is dissociable by
examining attentional control and inhibitory control separately. Specifically, evidence suggests high
levels of inhibitory control in early childhood place children at higher risk for developing
internalizing psychopathology whereas high levels of attentional control are protective against
internalizing psychopathology (White, McDermott, Degnan, Henderson, & Fox, 2011).
Overall, the reviewed results demonstrate that EC is central to the social-emotional and
psychological development from a young age. However, when EC is studied using only behavioral

4

or informant-report measures, findings regarding its developmental trajectory and association with
important outcomes do not provide enough evidence to elucidate other contributing mechanisms of
EC development.
Neurophysiological Indices of Effortful Control in Youth
Evidence from neuroimaging studies and cognitive research points to the “executive
attention network” as the neural network that monitors and helps resolve conflict by modulating
neighboring attention networks, and this modulation is thought to underlie core functions of EC
(Rothbart & Rueda, 2005; Rothbart, Sheese, & Posner, 2007). The lack of research on
neurocognitive development in early childhood is a barrier to understanding the behavioral and
neurophysiological processes characterizing EC and its development, knowledge that is essential for
developing interventions based on the underlying mechanisms associated with mental illness.
An important measure of EC is error commission. Attentional and inhibitory control skills
are responsible for our ability to detect and subsequently correct errors. The ERN and N2 are eventrelated potentials (ERPs) that have been consistently recorded using electroencephalogram (EEG).
The ERN follows the commission of an error whereas the N2 precedes a correct response following
stimulus presentation and is enhanced on trials involving more conflict. Increasing evidence from
source localization and neuroimaging studies suggest that the ERN and N2 are generated from the
dorsal ACC (e.g., van Veen & Carter, 2002; van Veen, Cohen, Botvinick, Stenger, & Carter, 2001),
providing support that both ERPs may index the efficiency of the executive attention network. The
ERN was initially identified in adults appearing as a negative deflection at frontocentral electrodes
within approximately 100 ms of an error, and identified as a robust marker of processes related to
error correction and suppression (Gehring, Liu, Orr, & Carp, 2012; Yeung & Summerfield, 2012).
The ERN effect is assessed by comparing its amplitude following an erroneous response to the
amplitude following a correct response. The negative deflection following a correct response is

5

known as the correct-related negativity (CRN), and the difference between the ERN and CRN
(ERN minus CRN) is known as the ERN difference (∆ERN).
Unlike the ERN, the N2 is a negativity elicited prior to a response and approximately 300 ms
following stimulus presentation. The N2 has been examined using different visual and auditory
modalities that produce several different N2 subcomponents. In the present study, I focused on the
inhibitory visual N2 (henceforth referred to as the N2) that is maximal at frontocentral sites since it
is more distinguishable compared to other N2 components elicited with auditory stimuli and is most
often examined in relation to executive attention and EC-related skills. The N2 is typically larger or
more negative on correct trials involving greater conflict such as successfully inhibiting a pre-potent
response (van Veen & Carter, 2002) or on an incongruent versus congruent trial. The N2 elicited on
high conflict trials may be referred to as the “No-Go N2” or “incongruent N2” whereas the N2
elicited on low conflict trials may be referred to as the “Go N2” or “congruent N2”. The difference
between the high conflict N2 and low conflict N2 (high conflict N2 minus low conflict N2) is
known as the ∆N2, and is a measure of the N2 effect between high and low conflict trials. For the
purposes of the present study, I will refer to N2 elicited on high conflict trials as the “high conflict
N2” and N2 elicited on low conflict trials as the “low conflict N2”.
Current research suggests that the ERN and N2 can be elicited in children as young as 3
years of age (Espinet, Anderson, & Zelazo, 2012; Grammer, Carrasco, Gehring, & Morrison, 2014;
Lo, Schroder, Moran, Durbin, & Moser, 2015), and differences in latency and amplitude have been
reported in children compared to adults (Davies, Segalowitz, & Gavin, 2004). However, despite the
increase in studies examining the ERN and N2 in children, very little is understood about the nature
and function of these neural markers in development, which precludes our ability to understand the
extent to which these differences might characterize changes in EC.

6

Correlates of neurophysiological measures of effortful control. Early studies on the
ERN and N2 in children have primarily focused on clinical populations and samples at high risk for
developing psychopathology. The most commonly studied population with EC deficits includes
children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), a disorder characterized by
developmentally inappropriate levels of inattention and/or hyperactivity and impulsivity that cause
significant impairment in daily functioning (DSM-5; American Psychiatric Association, 2013).
ERN studies examining error processing in children with clinically significant deficits in EC
suggest that initial error detection and later error reflection may be diminished. Greater support for a
reduced ERN in populations with EC deficits is consistent with the hypotheses derived from the
conflict monitoring theory, which states that difficulties maintaining attention toward target stimuli
reduces the contrast between error and correct trials, resulting in a smaller ERN (Albrecht et al.,
2010; Groen et al., 2008; Groom et al., 2013; Rosch & Hawk, 2013; van Meel, Heslenfeld,
Oosterlaan, & Sergeant, 2007). However, there are a number of studies reporting either no group
differences or larger ERNs in children with ADHD compared to healthy controls. For example, a
study examining the ERN in children with ADHD and comorbid conditions, reported that children
with ADHD exhibited a significantly larger ERN compared to healthy controls (Burgio-Murphy et
al., 2007). It is notable that each study differed in their use of task parameters (e.g., task type,
number of trials, task difficulty, task feedback, instructions, task timing) and ERP scoring methods
(i.e., mean versus peak amplitude), which introduces a range of methodological issues that likely
contribute to the variability in results (Shiels & Hawk, 2010). Additionally, the heterogeneity of
symptoms associated with ADHD may contribute to the inconsistencies in the literature regarding
the mean-level differences in the ERN between ADHD populations and controls. Specifically,
children with ADHD may exhibit symptoms that are more consistent with a predominantly
inattentive profile, a predominantly hyperactive/impulsive profile, or both.

7

Research on the N2 in clinical populations with deficits in EC began several decades earlier
compared to research on the ERN in these populations, and is therefore more extensive. However,
findings on N2 variation between clinical and healthy populations are highly inconsistent. Several
studies have reported a reduced N2 effect in children with ADHD (e.g., Brandeis et al., 1998; Broyd
et al., 2005; Johnstone, Watt, & Dimoska, 2010; Pliszka, Liotti, & Woldorff, 2000), Autism Spectrum
Disorder (Tye et al., 2014), and unaffected siblings of children with ADHD (Albrecht et al., 2010)
whereas others have reported no N2 differences between clinical populations with EC deficits and
healthy controls (e.g., Cao et al., 2013; Fallgatter et al., 2004; Johnstone & Galletta, 2013; Rosch &
Hawk, 2013; Spronk, Jonkman, & Kemner, 2008). In addition, there are studies reporting the
opposite effect, a larger N2 amplitude in children with ADHD compared to healthy controls
(Jonkman, van Melis, Kemner, & Markus, 2007; Senderecka, Grabowska, Szewczyk, Gerc, &
Chmylak, 2012; Smith, Johnstone, & Barry, 2004). (See reviews by Barry, Johnstone, & Clarke, 2003;
Johnstone, Barry, & Clarke, 2013).
Anxious and depressive populations have also been of interest to researchers given that
higher negative emotionality and difficulty regulating such affect is related to poor EC skills in early
childhood. The ERN is hypothesized to be larger in adults who must demonstrate increased effort
to compensate for the anxious apprehension that interferes with their ability to reengage with task
goals following an error (Moser, Moran, Schroder, Donnellan, & Yeung, 2013; Moser et al., 2014).
Other accounts theorize that larger ERNs in adults reflects trait-like differences in threat sensitivity.
Specifically, clinically significant levels of anxiety are characterized by an increased defensive
response to errors and that errors are threatening (Proudfit, Inzlicht, & Mennin, 2013). Overall,
studies support an association between a larger ERN and greater anxiety in older children (i.e.,
Hajcak, Franklin, Foa, & Simons, 2008; Hum, Manassis, & Lewis, 2013; Ladouceur et al., 2006) and
in adolescents who were behaviorally inhibited as children (McDermott et al., 2009). However, there

8

is some inconsistency between studies on observing this association using parent-reported measures
of anxiety (Bress, Meyer, & Hajcak, 2013; Santesso, Segalowitz, & Schmidt, 2006). Some of this
inconsistency may arise from limitations of parent-reported measures that introduce more error,
such as the influence of parent characteristics and psychopathology on parent-reported measures
(Durbin & Wilson, 2012). Importantly, recent evidence suggests that the relationship between the
ERN and anxiety may change over the course of development based on reports that the relationship
is opposite in younger children (Lo et al., 2015; Meyer, Weinberg, Klein, & Hajcak, 2012; Torpey et
al., 2013).
Fewer studies have investigated the relationship between N2 and affective processes in
children. There is some evidence to suggest that children with anxiety disorders exhibit larger N2
amplitudes on high conflict trials (Henderson, 2010) whereas others report that these children do
not demonstrate an N2 effect compared to their healthy counterparts such that anxiety disorder
groups exhibit a similar N2 response regardless of trial type (Hum et al., 2013). Researchers have
hypothesized that a larger N2 indicates that anxious children may allocate more attentional resources
toward emotion regulation. Very few studies have examined both the ERN and N2 within the same
sample, and of those that did (Hum et al., 2013; Ladouceur, Conway, & Dahl, 2010), researchers did
not test the extent to which the N2 and ERN may index similar or different EC processes.
Attempting to draw conclusions and make inferences about the functional significance of
the ERN and N2 in the studies reviewed above is severely limited by the field’s inadequate
understanding of the basic developmental changes in these processes across childhood and
adolescence. Rather than a review of individual findings across different age groups I conducted a
meta-regression analysis on existing studies to evaluate the developmental trajectory of the ERN and
N2 (Lo under review). A meta-regression analysis of 26 studies on the ERN (N = 1, 519) indicated a
0.02µV increase in ERN amplitude with 1-month increase in age, and of 19 studies on the N2 on

9

high conflict trials (N = 1, 095) revealed a 0.02µV reduction in high conflict N2 amplitude with 1month increase in age. These analyses provide initial support for the hypothesis that the ERN and
N2 may measure distinct facets of EC, and that dissociable effects of the ERN and N2 related to
EC can be observed in childhood and adolescence. The increase in the ERN with age is consistent
with the notion that the ERN is a measure of attentional control. As these skills increase with age,
the ability to attend to target stimuli increases, which likely increases the discrepancy between error
and correct trials when continued processing post-response occurs and the ERN is produced. The
N2 amplitude on high conflict trials decreased with age, which is consistent with the notion that the
N2 is a measure of inhibitory control. As inhibitory control skills improve with age, the ability to
inhibit motor responses and ignore distracting information increases, which decreases conflict
between irrelevant and target stimuli. The diminished conflict between irrelevant and target stimuli
leads to a reduced N2 on high conflict trials.
Targeted Training and Intervention Studies
Changes in EC arising from brain maturation and associated changes in the ERN can also be
understood through researchers’ recent efforts to improve EC skills using training and intervention.
Much of research on interventions that aid EC development originate from the neurocognitive
development literature and target broader skills related to EC. The most common approach is using
a computerized working-memory training known as CogMed (Pearson Education, Upper Saddle
River, NJ), which uses computer games that place increasingly greater demands on working memory
as the child progresses through the training program. There are several published studies evaluating
the training effects of CogMed on executive functioning skills. Of these studies, children included in
these training studies are either typically developing (Bergman-Nutley et al., 2011; Thorell, Lindqvist,
Bergman-Nutley, Bohlin, & Klingberg, 2009), diagnosed with ADHD (Holmes & Gathercole, 2010;
Klingberg et al., 2005), or have low working memory span (Holmes, Gathercole, & Dunning, 2009).

10

On average, the training program occurs across the course of 6-7 weeks and the amount of
training ranges between 6-17 hours across the entire study. It’s important to note that their findings,
in addition to other training studies, suggest transfer to other cognitive and EC-related skills is quite
narrow. In other words, training benefits often do not generalize to performance on unpracticed
tasks (Diamond & Lee, 2011; Sala & Gobet, 2017). Other training and intervention programs
include computer training targeting attention (Rueda, Rothbart, McCandliss, Saccomanno, & Posner,
2005), aerobic exercise (e.g., Drollette et al., 2014a; Hillman, Buck, Themanson, Pontifex, & Castelli,
2009; Pontifex, Saliba, Raine, Picchietti, & Hillman, 2013; Tuckman & Hinkle, 1986), martial arts
and mindfulness (e.g., Flook et al., 2010; Lakes & Hoyt, 2004). The behavioral and cognitive effects
of these programs are reviewed elsewhere (Diamond & Lee, 2011), and therefore only studies that
included neurophysiological measures will reviewed below.
Only one training study to date has investigated the effect of training skills related to EC on
the ERN. The study conducted was a brief aerobic exercise intervention based on increasing
evidence that physical exercise improves a EC-related skills, which some have suggested reflects the
beneficial effects of physical activity on prefrontal cortex functioning (Hillman, Erickson, & Kramer,
2008; Sibley & Etnier, 2003). Children aged 8 to 10 years who were diagnosed or suspected to have
ADHD and children selected as healthy controls engaged in either 20 minutes of moderate-intensity
aerobic exercise or 20 minutes of seated reading (Pontifex et al., 2013). All children exhibited
enhanced performance on academic achievement tests following exercise as compared to the seated
condition. Following the seated reading condition, children with ADHD exhibited a reduced ERN
relative to healthy controls. However, following the single bout of exercise, there were no group
differences in the ERN. An exercise-induced increase in the ERN was only observed in children
with ADHD, suggesting that children with deficits in EC skills may be more likely to exhibit
exercised-induced changes in the ERN.

11

Of the studies examining the effects of training on the N2 amplitude, a majority have
focused on using computer-based training on performance of the same task or closely related tasks
that tap similar EC skills. However, training conditions between these studies are variable. For
instance, one study focused on testing the hypothesis that performance on a single behavioral task
(the Dimensional Card Change Sort; DCCS) is dependent on the child’s reflective processing, and
compared the influence of reflective training on N2 amplitude in 2- to 4-year olds (Espinet,
Anderson, & Zelazo, 2013). Reflection training included engaging the child in step-by-step
processing of how to complete the DCCS (i.e., asking the child to first name the relevant rule or
dimension, providing a correct example, and then assisting the child in choosing the correct sort).
Results indicated significant reductions in the N2 amplitude following training compared to practice
conditions without reflection feedback. In another training study, investigators tested the impact of a
5-day attention program over the course of 2-3 weeks using various computer tasks on 4-6 year olds
(Rueda et al., 2005). Results suggested that training produced EEG patterns in young children that
looked more similar to older age group counterparts. A follow-up study extended the training
program to 5 weeks and reported no differences in N2 amplitude between condition or time point
(Rueda, Checa, & Cómbita, 2012). However, authors suggested that evidence of an earlier and more
posterior N2 in the training group reflected more efficient detection of conflict given that adults also
exhibit a more posterior N2 effect.
The reviewed studies highlight the inconsistency of researchers’ interpretations of which N2
characteristics (amplitude, latency, and source localization) index EC skills. The lack of agreement
makes it difficult to compare the results across studies and formulate a priori hypotheses in future
studies. Additionally, it is challenging to interpret the functional meaning of these changes in
neurophysiological indices when behavioral measures are not included or do not appear to be
associated with behavioral measures of EC. However, these investigations support an important

12

notion that the ERN and N2 are plastic during this developmental period, and demonstrate that a
brief experimental manipulation designed to improve EC skills has the potential to alter both
behavioral and neural measures of EC.

13

PRESENT STUDY
A short-term training targeting EC provided a novel experimental manipulation for explicitly
validating brain measures thought to reflect EC. The approach had two advantages: (1) EC was
directly manipulated over a short time period and compared to a passive control group, affording
the control of environmental and maturation effects that are not controlled in naturalistic
longitudinal studies; (2) findings could inform prevention and intervention development based on
neural mechanisms of change. A multimethod approach was used to integrate informant-reported,
behavioral, and neurophysiological measures of training-induced changes in EC. Some studies in
adults suggest the ERN and N2 share similar underlying conflict monitoring processes (Yeung &
Cohen, 2006), but others suggest they are elicited by distinct processes (Mathalon, Whitfield, &
Ford, 2003). Even less is known about the ERN and N2 in children, and no known study has
examined their convergence. This present investigation was the first to use an experimental
manipulation to test the validity of the ERN and N2 as markers of EC, and to use multiple measures
of these markers and their associated behavioral correlates to help further isolate the
neurobehavioral processes that may underlie training-induced changes in EC.

14

HYPOTHESES
Demonstrating near transfer effects is the first step to ensuring that any improvement
detected is associated with the targeted training rather than with repeated practice, in addition to
helping isolate other neural and behavioral processes that may be responsible for changes in far
transfer tasks (Shipstead et al., 2012). Therefore, I anticipated that children in the training group
would exhibit significantly larger improvements on near transfer behavioral tasks that were practiced
during training compared to children in the control group. In terms of neurophysiological measures,
I anticipated that children in the training group would exhibit larger ERNs compared to the control
group given research suggesting that the ERN increases with age and reflects improvement in selfregulation skills (e.g., Davies, Segalowitz, & Gavin, 2004; Lo, under review). A handful of studies have
found a reduced N2 amplitude in children following trainings targeting broader executive
functioning skills (Espinet et al., 2013; Rueda et al., 2005). Thus, I expected a reduced N2 amplitude
in the training group, which would suggest that the ERN and N2 may mark different EC processes
(e.g., attentional and inhibitory control). Alternatively, if the ERN and N2 show changes in the same
direction, this would suggest they index similar processes. The reviewed literature suggests that EC
plays an important role in predicting psychological adjustment outcomes. Therefore, I expected that
children participating in targeted training would have greater reductions in parent-reported
adjustment problems, and lower mean-levels of teacher-reported adjustment problems at follow-up
compared to control.
These hypotheses (see Table C1) were tested further by exploratory analyses examining
associations between changes in neural, behavioral, and informant-reported measures of EC to
disentangle the overlapping and distinctive facets of EC. I anticipated that children exhibiting the
largest changes in the ERN and N2 would also demonstrate the largest changes in behavioral
measures of EC such that increases in the ERN would be associated with improvement in

15

behavioral measures of EC, and reduction in the N2 would be associated with improvement in
behavioral measures of EC. Similarly, increases in the ERN (and decreases in the N2) would be
associated with reduction in informant-reported EC and social-emotional problems.

16

METHODS
Behavioral and neural processes associated with changes in EC following a short-term
intervention in a sample of preschool-age children were investigated. Multiple methods (informantreport, behavioral, neurophysiological) and passive control design were employed to assess traininginduced changes and provide preliminary tests of mechanisms involved in training-induced changes.
The Michigan State University Institutional Review Board approved all procedures for this research
study entitled “Training Effortful Control in Young Children” (Protocol #15-476).
Sample
Children between 4 and 5 years of age who have not yet entered kindergarten from the midMichigan area were recruited across three consecutive summers (see Table A1), with equal number
of girls and boys. Eligible participants were selected into training or passive control group. In order
to ensure adequate sample size in the training group, children and families who were determined
eligible first were selected to participate in the training group. Participants in the passive control
group were selected to match the age and gender of their counterparts in the training group.
Participants in Wave 1 were drawn from a larger longitudinal investigation of child temperament (N
= 277) and selected if they completed the neurophysiological portion of the study (see Lo, Schroder,
Moran, Durbin, & Moser, 2015). The wave 1 training/control cohort was run in Summer of 2014.
Participants in Wave 2 were recruited using commercial mailing lists and postings on
classified advertisement websites. Eligible families completed a parent-report measure online to
assess their child’s EC skills. To counteract potential ceiling effects reported by previous studies
exploring EC training (Klingberg et al., 2005; Tominey & McClelland, 2011), a subset of children
who had low-to-moderate levels of EC were recruited for the study. A total of 139 participants
completed the survey (42 in Sample 2, and 97 in Sample 3). A total of four training/control cohorts
were run for Wave 2 (first cohort in Summer of 2015, and final three cohorts in Summer of 2016).

17

Each training cohort consisted of 5-6 children. The final sample from Wave 2 included 21 children
in the training group and 17 in the passive control group.
The final sample of children (n = 48) had a mean age of 5.14 years (SD = 0.37, range: 4.505.92). Data on race/ethnicity, marital status, and family income were provided by 89.6% of parents.
Of those, the racial and ethnic composition of the child participants was as follows: White European
American (74.4.7%), African American (9.3%), bi-racial/multi-racial (9.3%), Hispanic/Latino
(7.0%). Fifty percent of identified bi-racial and multi-racial children were endorsed as Asian and
White European American, and fifty percent endorsed as Hispanic/Latino and White European
American. Yearly family income ranged from $10,000 to greater than $100,000; 14.0% reported
income below $20,000, and 20.9% less than $41,000. Highest level of education endorsed by parent
ranged from some college to professional doctorate. The education level of parents was as follows:
some college (16.3%), technical school (7.0%), Associate’s degree (16.3%), Bachelor’s degree
(18.6%), Master’s degree (32.6%), and professional doctorate (9.3%). A majority of parent
participants reported their marital status as married (76.7%) while other participants reported either
a status as single/never married (11.6%), living with a partner (7.0%), or separated (4.7%).
Inclusion/exclusion criteria. Children in both Wave 1 and 2 were eligible to participate if
they resided with at least one English-speaking parent, and were free of significant medical
conditions or developmental disabilities that prevented them from completing study assessments.
Children were also eligible if they have no known history of epilepsy, head trauma resulting in a loss
of consciousness for more than five minutes, and hearing, visual, or physical disabilities that could
cause difficulties understanding and/or using a computer. Wave 2 caregivers completed an online
screener questionnaire including items from the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive FunctionPreschool Version (BRIEF-P; Gioia, Espy, & Isquith, 2002). Children were eligible to participate in

18

the study if their z-score on the BRIEF-P fell between -1 and 2 based on published normative
means for this measure.
Timeline and assessments. At baseline, children were assessed 1-2 weeks prior to
completing targeted EC training. Baseline assessments included: 1) 2-hour lab assessment consisting
of behavioral measures of EC and 2) a separate 2-hour lab visit completing neurophysiological
assessment and measures assessing general cognitive skills and academic achievement. During
baseline assessments, parents completed questionnaires assessing their child’s social-emotional
adjustment. In order to ensure adequate sample size in scheduled the training group, children were
selected into the training group on a rolling basis and children selected into the passive control
group were age- and sex-matched to their training group peers. Children selected into the targeted
training group completed a 5-day targeted EC training. The following week, children completed one
2.5-hour post-training assessment that included behavioral and neurophysiological assessments of
EC. The same set of questionnaires completed at baseline were re-administered to parents and
children’s teachers at 1 month and 3 months following targeted training. Children participating in
the passive control group were administered the same assessments, but did not participate in any
form of training in between assessment time points.
Measures
Behavioral measures of EC. Children completed a set of tasks (Appendix A) designed to
elicit behaviors and emotional responses indicative of individual differences in EC skills and traits,
some of which were drawn from the NIH Toolbox for Executive Functioning (Zelazo et al., 2013)
(e.g., the Dimensional Change Card Sort; DCCS) and others from standardized temperament
batteries (Goldsmith, Reilly, Lemery, Longley, & Prescott, 1995). Tasks were chosen that either
assess attentional control skills (e.g., Tower of Hanoi, Shape Stroop) and/or motor inhibition and
skills related to inhibitory control (e.g., Walk-a-Line Slowly, Simon Says, Hand Game). Few

19

investigations have evaluated developmental sensitivity of behavioral measures of attentional and
inhibitory control skills in preschool-aged children. Therefore, a range of different tasks of varying
difficulty (Carlson, 2005) were chosen to develop a comprehensive battery. Parents remained outside
of the assessment room and were able to watch their child complete the set of tasks via a live video
stream. In between each task, a short play break was used to allow children to return to a baseline
affective state. Unless otherwise noted below, higher scores on these behavioral tasks were indicative
of better EC skills. Each task is described in detail below.

Behavioral measures of attentional control skills.
Digit Span (Weschler, 2003). Children completed the digit span subtest of the Weschler
Intelligence Scale for Children – Fourth Edition (WISC-IV). First, the child was asked to repeat
increasingly longer digit strings exactly as read by the examiner. If the child incorrectly repeated both
trials of a string length, then the task was discontinued. Next, the child was asked to repeat the digits
as read by the examiner but backwards. The same discontinue rules were applied to the backward
digit span administration.
Reverse Categorization (Carlson, Mandell, & Williams, 2004). The child was asked to help the
experimenter sort small and large blocks into a small and large bucket. First, the experimenter
demonstrated placing the small blocks into the small bucket and large blocks into the large bucket in
a pseudorandom order for 6 trials. The child was given a turn for 6 trials, similar to the 6 pre-switch
testing trials in the DCCS. The child was then instructed to play a “silly game” with the experimenter
in which the small blocks were sorted into the large bucket, and the large blocks sorted into the
small bucket. Twelve post-switch test trials were administered.
Dimensional Change Card Sort (DCCS; Zelazo, 2006). The DCCS is a common measure sued to
assess EC skills in children. The child was instructed to sort two bivalent target cards (e.g., blue
rabbit and red boat) based on one dimension (e.g., color). After 6 pre-switch trials, the experimenter

20

instructed the child to sort the target cards based on the second dimension (e.g., shape). If the child
correctly identified 5 out of the 6 post-switch trials, the experimenter administered an additional
version of the DCCS where target cards with a black border followed sorting rules on one
dimension and target cards without a black border followed sorting rules on the second dimension.
Day/Night (Gerstadt, Hong, & Diamond, 1994). The child was shown two different cards – a
white card with a yellow sun, and a black card with white stars and moon. The child was instructed
to say “day” when presented with the black card and “night” when presented with the white card.
Shape Stroop (Kochanska et al., 2000). The child was presented with three different fruits (i.e.,
banana, apple, orange) in two sizes (i.e., small and large). The experimenter asked the child to
identify the fruit and size of each. Next, the child was presented with two images – both of which
depicted a different small fruit was embedded within a larger fruit (e.g., small apple inside a large
orange, and small banana inside a large apple). The child was asked to identify either the small or
large version of the fruit (e.g., “show me the small apple”). Twelve testing trials were administered
and children received a score of 1 for correct responses, 0 for incorrect responses.
Flexible Item Selection Task (FIST; Jacques & Zelazo, 2001). The child was shown a set of 3
pictures and asked to select 2 pictures that matched each other on one dimension (i.e., size, shape,
color) and then asked to select a different pair of 2 pictures that matched each other on a dimension
different from the first. A total of 15 testing trials were administered. Children were not provided
feedback during testing trials. On each testing trial, children who correctly selected the first match
received a score of 1. Children received an additional score of 1 if they correctly selected the second
match, but only if their first match was correct. This scoring system was developed by Jacques and
colleagues (2001) in order to prevent score inflation (i.e., an incorrect match on the first trial would
mean that either of the remaining two matches were correct). Scores on second matches (variable
named “FIST Select 2”) reflect the ability to flexibly shift between thinking about two different

21

concepts (i.e., size vs. shape), which is an aspect related to attentional control skills.
Tower of Hanoi (Welsh, 1999). The Tower of Hanoi task adapted from the classic tower task
(Simon, 1975) developed by Welsh (1999) to use with younger children was administered. Detailed
administration instructions have been reported in the literature (Carlson, Moses, & Claxton, 2004),
so a brief description will be provided here. The child was provided instructions on how to play the
“Monkey Jumping Game”, in which monkeys (wooden disks) could only jump one at a time and the
larger monkey could not go on top of a smaller monkey. The child was required to move the
monkeys from peg to peg in order to create the same monkey tower that was constructed in front of
the experimenter. The task increased in difficulty in terms of the tower construction and number of
monkeys involved. In total, there were six levels of difficulty and performance was scored as the
highest level completed (0 to 6).
Yes/No (Wolfe & Bell, 2004). The child was instructed to say “no” when the experimenter
shook her head yes (i.e., up and down), and to say “yes” when the experimenter shook her head no
(i.e., side to side). Two practice trials were administered and included in the overall score if the child
responded correctly on the first try, followed by fourteen testing trials for a total of a possible score
of 16.

Behavioral measures of inhibitory control skills.
Walk-a-Line Slowly (Murray & Kochanska, 2002). The child was asked to walk on a line taped
on the floor. Next, the child was asked to walk on the line again, but this time as slowly as possible
on a line taped on the floor, and then as quickly as possible. The child was again instructed to walk
on the line as slowly as possible. The length of time for each trial was recorded by two blinded
research assistants, and inhibitory control skills on this task were operationalized as the difference
between Slow Trial 1 (Baseline:
0.99; Post-assessment:

= 0.98; Post-assessment:

= 1.00).

22

= 0.98) and Trial 1 (Baseline:

=

Simon Says (Strommen, 1973). The child was required to perform various actions (e.g., touch
head, touch nose) as instructed by the experimenter, but only if the command was preceded by the
phrase “Simon Says”. A total of 20 testing trials were administered.
Hand Game (Hughes, 1998). The child was instructed to imitate the hand gesture of the
experimenter and then perform the opposite hand gesture. For example, when the experimenter
points a finger, the child is instructed to make a fist, and vice versa. Children received a score of 1 if
they successfully performed the opposite hand gesture, and a score of 0 if they failed to perform the
opposite hand gesture. A total of 15 possible trials were administered. If the child received a score of
1 on 6 consecutive trials, then the task was discontinued and the child was given a score of 1 on the
possible remaining trials.
Bear Dragon (Kochanska, Murray, Jacques, Koenig, & Vandegeest, 1996). The child was introduced
to two puppets, a “nice bear” and “naughty dragon”, and asked to only follow commands when the
bear speaks but not follow demands when the dragon speaks. The experimenter spoke in a highpitched voice and moves the bear’s mouth to state a specific movement (e.g., “touch your head”)
and then spoke in a low-pitched voice while moving the dragon’s mouth saying the next movement
(e.g., “touch your nose”). Ten practice trials (5 bear trials, 5 dragon trials in alternating order) were
administered with feedback followed by 10 test trials (also administered in alternating order). The
child was reminded of the rules after the first 5 trials regardless of performance. The child received a
score of 1 if they responded correctly, and 0 if they responded incorrectly.
Knock-Tap (Klenberg, Korkman, & Lahti-Nuuttila, 2001). The child was required to imitate the
experimenter’s action (i.e., knocking or tapping on the table) for two practice trials, and then
instructed to perform the opposite action. For example, when the experimenter knocks on the table,
the child must tap the table. A total of 8 testing trials are administered and children received a score
of 1 for correct responses, 0 for incorrect responses.

23

Snack Delay (Goldsmith et al., 1995). The child was instructed to wait until the experimenter
rang a bell to eat a piece of candy that was placed under a clear cup. The experimenter followed a
systematic series of 8 delay trials that ranged from 10 to 30 seconds. The number of prompts, errors,
self-corrects, and touches were coded by two blinded research assistants (Baseline Prompts ICC =
0.99, Post-Assessment Prompts ICC = 0.69; Baseline Errors ICC = 0.99, Post-Assessment Errors
ICC = 0.94; Baseline Self-Corrects ICC = 0.98, Post-Assessment Self-Corrects ICC = 0.64; Baseline
Touches ICC = 0.89, Post-Assessment Touches ICC = 0.90). Prompts were defined as verbal
requests by the child directed at the experimenter (e.g., “go”, “do it”, “ring it”). If the child ate the
piece of candy, this behavior was coded as an error. If the child exhibited behaviors indicative of
making an error but then correcting it (e.g., picking up the cup to reveal the candy and placing it
back, picking up the candy and then returning it to the plate), this behavior was coded as a selfcorrect. Touches were defined as physical contact with task-relevant objects (e.g., hitting the bell,
touching the experimenter’s hand to ring the bell, displacing the cup). Behavioral codes were not
mutually exclusive and behaviors could be double coded (e.g., picking up the cup and placing it back
would be coded as a self-correct and a touch). A composite score was created by Z-scoring the
behavioral codes and averaging the standardized values. The composite score was then reverse
scored (multiplied by -1) so that higher composite scores reflected better EC skills on this task.
Head Toes Knees Shoulders (HTKS; McClelland & Cameron, 2012). This task required children to
first respond as instructed to a command (e.g., “touch your toes”), then perform the opposite of the
original instruction (e.g., touch their head when the command was “touch your toes”). In
subsequent trials, additional commands for touching shoulders and knees were added to increase the
complexity of the task. A total of 20 test trials were administered and children were given a score of
2 for a correct response, 1 for a self-corrected response, and 0 for an incorrect response.
Whisper Game (Carlson et al., 2004). The child was asked to whisper the names of 10 different

24

popular cartoon characters (e.g., Dora, Big Bird). The experimenter spoke in a whisper throughout
the game and instructed the child to whisper the color of the cartoon character if they did not know
the character’s name. Children were given a score of 0 if they shouted the response, 1 if they used a
normal talking voice, and 2 if they whispered.

Transfer type. Near transfer measures included tasks that were practiced during training,
and assessed at baseline and post-assessment (see Table D1). For intermediate transfer measures
with visual stimuli (i.e., DCCS and Stroop), standard versions (i.e., red rabbits and blue boats;
day/night) were used during baseline and post-training assessments, and alternative versions (i.e.,
yellow flowers and green trucks; grass/snow stroop) were used during targeted training practice.
Far-intermediate transfer behavioral tasks were those not practiced during training, and only
administered at baseline and post-assessments. Behavioral performance on computerized tasks (e.g.,
accuracy, mean reaction time) on Go/No-Go and Flanker tasks were also as performance-based
measures of EC at baseline and post-training. All performance-based measures of EC served as
dependent variables for within- and between-subjects analyses.
Assessment of cognitive ability and academic achievement. Children completed the
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT; Dunn & Dunn, 2007) to assess their receptive vocabulary.
The Block Design and Matrix Reasoning subtests were administered from the Weschler Preschool
and Primary Scale of Intelligence (WPPSI-III; Weschler, 2002) to assess their fluid reasoning skills.
The Block Span subtest from the Stanford Binet Intelligence Scales for Early Childhood (Early SB5;
Roid, 2005) was administered to assess visual-spatial working memory, and the Last-Word subtest
was administered to assess verbal working memory. Academic achievement was assessed using the
Letter-Word Identification and Applied Problems subtests from the Woodcock Johnson-III Tests of
Achievement (WJ-III; Woodcock, McGrew, & Mather, 2001). This procedure occurred at the end of
the neurophysiological assessment visit.

25

Informant-reported measures. At baseline, demographic data and future enrollment in
school were collected. Parents’ responses from the screener questionnaire were used as the baseline
measure for the BRIEF-P. The BRIEF-P is a standardized questionnaire that asks informants to rate
items related to inhibitory control, attentional shifting, emotion regulation, and planning. Parents
completed the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) to measure parents’ perceptions of their child’s
psychological adjustment (Achenbach, 1991). This commonly used measure asks parents to rate how
often their child exhibits certain behaviors indicative of internalizing problems (e.g., anxiety,
depression) and externalizing problems (e.g., hyperactivity, disruptive behavior). The CBCL and
BRIEF-P were administered at baseline, 1-month, and 3-month follow-up time points. Teacher
versions of these questionnaires were administered at the 3-month follow-up time point to allow
sufficient time for teachers to familiarize themselves with the child’s behavior in the classroom. A
total of 25 teacher-reported questionnaires were completed and used for analysis.
Neurophysiological assessment of EC. An experimenter guided the child
through each step of the EEG set-up and electrode application. The parent was permitted to stay in
the room to observe EEG electrode application and set up. After set up, parents waited outside of
the testing room in an observation room where they could view their child completing tasks through
a ceiling camera. The experimenter was present throughout testing, but sat behind the child out of
their view and either provided encouragement to complete the task or performance feedback in
between task blocks depending on the child’s accuracy (see below for description). The children
completed a total of two tasks on the computer that were randomly counterbalanced. The child was
positioned 17 inches from a 21-inch computer monitor for each task.

Go/No-Go task. Children completed a picture version of the Go/No-Go task called the
Zoo Game, which has been used on similar samples as the present study (Grammer et al., 2014).
Children were asked to help a zookeeper capture zoo animals that had escaped from their cages.

26

Children were presented with images of three orangutans who were helping the zookeeper and
therefore did not need to be put back in their cages. The child was instructed to press the spacebar
quickly and accurately to each animal (Go stimuli) except when the animal was an orangutan (NoGo stimuli), in which case the child was to withhold pressing the spacebar. On each trial, a stimulus
of a colorful zoo animal was presented at a central location on the computer monitor. A fixation
cross appeared before the stimulus, which accurately to each animal (Go stimuli) except when the
animal was an orangutan (No-Go stimuli), in which case the child was to withhold pressing the
spacebar. On each trial, a stimulus of a colorful zoo animal was presented at a central location on the
computer monitor. A fixation cross appeared before the stimulus, which remained on the screen for
750 ms. Inter-trial intervals (ITI) were set to 500 ms.
The task began with a brief practice block, which consisted of 12 trials (9 Go trials and 3
No-Go trials). The practice block was repeated until the child demonstrated an understanding of the
task. After the practice block, children completed 8 blocks that consisted of 40 trials (30 Go trials
and 10 No-Go trials), totaling to 320 trials and lasting approximately 20 minutes. Novel sets of
animal images balanced for animal size, color, and type were used in each block. Children were given
performance feedback after each block of the task that was either related to making too many errors
such as, “Remember to watch out for the orangutan friends”, or not enough errors such as,
“Remember to try and catch the animals even faster next time!” The performance feedback prompts
provided for the children was determined by their accuracy in the preceding block, which was
automatically calculated to help yield error rates higher than 10% but lower than 35% to ensure
adequate accuracy rates and number of useable error trials for stable error-related waveforms. Before
the beginning of the task and after blocks 2, 4, 6, 7, and 8, feedback was also provided using a “Zoo
Map”, which allowed children to track their progress in the task.

Flanker task. A developmentally appropriate version of the Flanker task (Lo et al., 2015)

27

adapted from Rueda, Posner, Rothbart, and Davis-Stober (2004) was administered to children.
Flanker stimuli consisted of 5 yellow cartoon fish swimming to the left or right on a blue
background (see Figure B1). The child was instructed to focus on responding to the swimming
direction of the middle fish/central target stimulus while ignoring the flanking fish stimuli. The task
began with a practice block of 20 trials, including 5 congruent left trials (all fish facing to the left), 5
congruent right trials (all fish facing to the right), 5 incongruent left trials (middle fish facing left and
flanking fish facing right), and 5 incongruent right trials (middle fish facing right and flanking fish
facing left). A fixation cross appeared before each stimulus, which remained on the screen for 750
ms. ITI varied randomly between 700-1200 ms.
The practice block was repeated until the child understood the task. After the practice block,
children completed 7 blocks that consisted of 20 trials (5 of each trial type as in the practice block),
for a total of 140 trials lasting approximately 15 minutes. Similar to the Go/No-Go task, children
were given performance feedback after each block of the task that was either related to making too
many errors such as, “Pay attention to Goldie”, or not enough errors such as, “Try to go even faster
next time!” The performance feedback prompts provided for the children was determined in the
same manner described in the Go/No-Go task to ensure adequate accuracy rates and number of
useable error trials for stable error-related waveforms. Before the beginning of the task and after
blocks 1, 3, 5, and 7, feedback was also provided using a “Treasure Map”, which allowed children to
track their progress.
Neurophysiological Recording and Data Reduction
All EEG recordings were taken from 64 Ag-AgCl electrodes using the Active Two Biosemi
System (BioSemi, Amsterdam, The Netherlands). For EEG data acquisition, electrodes were placed
in a stretch-lycra cap according to the 10/20 system with two additional electrodes placed on the left
and right mastoids. Electrooculogram activity from eye movements and blinks were recorded at FP1

28

and three additional electrodes placed 1 cm from the pupil, one placed directly beneath the left pupil
and the remaining two placed on the left and right outer canthi. In accordance with BioSemi’s design
specifications, the Common Mode Sense active electrode and Driven Right Leg passive electrode
served as the reference during data acquisition. All EEG signals were digitized with a sampling rate
of 512 Hz using ActiView software (BioSemi).
EEG data were re-referenced to the numeric mean of the mastoids and band-pass filtered
with cutoffs of 0.1 and 30 Hz (12 dB/oct rolloff). All trials were also corrected for eye movements
and blinks using the method developed by Gratton, Coles, and Donchin (1983). A computer-based
algorithm was used to detect physiological artifacts such that individual trials were rejected if there
was a voltage step greater than 50 µV between sampling points, a voltage difference of more than
200 µV within a trial, or a maximum voltage difference less than 0.5 µV within a trial.
Time-locked error-related event-related potentials. Based on visual inspection of the
grand average ERN and previous published reports of the ERN in young samples (Grammer et al.,
2014; Lo et al., 2015), the ERN in the Go/No-Go and Flanker tasks were quantified using average
amplitude measures relative to a pre-response baseline of -150 to -50 along the midline (Fz, FCz, Cz,
CPz, and Pz). The mean amplitude of the ERN was computed on error trials in a window 50 ms
around the peak following the response. The CRN was computed on correct response trials. The
ERN difference (∆ERN) was calculated by subtracting the CRN from the ERN waveforms.
Stimulus-locked event-related potentials. Based on visual inspection of the grand average
N2 and published reports of the N2 in children (Pontifex et al., 2011; Rueda et al., 2005), the N2 in
the Go/No-Go and Flanker tasks were quantified using average amplitude measures relative to a
pre-response baseline of -100 to 0 along the midline (Fz, FCz, Cz, CPz, and Pz). The mean
amplitude of the high conflict N2 component was evaluated as the largest negative going peak
within a 325 to 550 ms latency window for the Go/No-Go task on No-Go trials and 250 to 550 ms

29

latency window for the Flanker task on incongruent trials in order to capture the full negative going
waveform. The low conflict N2 was the same measure, but computed on Go trials for the Go/NoGo task and congruent trials for the Flanker task.
Training Procedures
Targeted EC trainings took place over the course of 5 consecutive weekdays (Monday–
Friday) from 9AM to 12PM the summer immediately prior to children’s enrollment in kindergarten.
All tasks consisted of child participants interacting with experimenters and other participants in
small and large group settings. Chosen activities and tasks were drawn from the literature on training
attentional and inhibitory domains of EC and school readiness.
Training structure. Each day of targeted training was structured similarly such that the
morning began with a warm-up activity (e.g., singing a welcome song) followed by a “small group”
activity (see Table E1 for sample schedule). Each small group consisted of 3 children and one main
counselor who provided instructions and reflection training (Espinet et al., 2013) on the chosen
activity. Reflection training is a feedback procedure in which participants are trained on correcting
their error when a mistake is made, in contrast to corrective feedback where the participant is only
told if their response is right or wrong, but not told why or how to correct their error. This type of
feedback procedure is thought to work as one of the active ingredients in improving skills related to
EC. In small groups, activities were chosen from the attentional control domain (2 tasks: DCCS and
Stroop) or inhibitory control domain (4 tasks: Simon Says, Whisper Game, Hand Game, and Walka-Line). Small group activities took approximately 15 minutes and were followed by transitioning to
a “large group” activity. Large group activities involved all 6 children and tapped into response
inhibition and working memory using either oral and/or visual cues (5 tasks: Red Light/Purple
Light, Freeze Game, Jumping Game, Color-Matching Freeze, and Drum Beats). Large group tasks
were chosen based on literature supporting their ease of implementation in classrooms with groups

30

of young children with varying skills related to EC (Schmitt, McClelland, Tominey, & Acock, 2014;
Tominey & McClelland, 2011).
Large group activities took approximately 10 minutes followed by a different small group
activity. The order in which specific small or large group activities were chosen were unique from
day-to-day. Each training day had a scheduled break (i.e., snack and free play) that occurred after a
total of 3 small group and 2 large group transitions, leaving 1 small group and 1 large group
transition for the end of the training session. A positive group reinforcement method (i.e., marble
jar) was implemented during the training program such that children engaging in on-task behavior
(e.g., transitioning from small and large group activities after being prompted once), were given
marbles to place in a jar. Once the jar was full, children earned a party at the end of the training
program.

31

RESULTS
Based on intent-to-treat principles to address non-random attrition, all participants were
included in analyses whenever possible or appropriate. Child participants were analyzed irrespective
of training performance or attendance. Exceptions included analyses involving difference scores
where both baseline and post-assessment scores were required. Moreover, children with mean ERN
amplitudes greater than 3 SDs from the sample mean on any of the midline electrode sites were
identified as outliers and removed from analyses (Go/No-Go task: n = 3; Flanker task: n =5).
Children with mean N2 amplitudes greater than 3 SDs from the sample mean on any of the midline
electrode sites were identified as outliers and removed from analyses (Go/No-Go task: n = 2;
Flanker task: n =4).
Power Analyses
Mixed between-within subjects analysis of variances (ANOVAs) were conducted to evaluate
time (baseline vs. post-assessment) and time by group (training vs. control) interaction effects for
behavioral, neural, and parent-reported measures. When using the entire sample (N = 48), I was able
to detect a significant large effect (η2p = 0.14) with 78% power, a significant moderate (η2p = 0.06)
with 40% power, and a significant small (η2p = 0.01) with 10% power. Independent t-tests were
conducted to evaluate the differences in teacher-reported concerns between training and the control
group. I was able to detect a significant large effect (d = 0.8) with 77% power, a significant moderate
effect (d = 0.5) with 40% power, and a significant small effect (d = 0.2) with 10% power. Bivariate
correlations were conducted to address exploratory aims of understanding correlated changes across
method. Using the entire sample, I was able to detect a significant large effect (r = 0.5) with 97%
power, a significant moderate effect (r = 0.3) with 57% power, and a significant small effect (r = 0.1)
with 10% power. Given these power analyses, results discussed below will only focus on effects that
were moderate in size (e.g., η2p = 0.06, d = 0.5, r = 0.3) and large in size (e.g., η2p = 0.14, d = 0.8, r =

32

0.5) regardless of whether they reached statistical significance. If effects discussed did not meet
statistical significance testing standards ( = 0.05), it is noted in the text and indicated in the tables.
Trend-level effects are defined as effects with 0.05 < p ≤ 0.10.
Randomization Checks
Performance on measures of cognitive ability and academic achievement are presented in
Table A2. Independent t-test results indicated a trend-level difference between groups in matrix
reasoning that was moderate in effect size such that the training group scored higher on this subtest
compared to the control group (t(41) = 1.76, p = 0.09, d = 0.54). However, no significant differences
were observed between training and the control group in the block design subtest (t(40) = 1.03, p =
0.31, d = 0.33), which measures similar perceptual and fluid reasoning skills as matrix reasoning.
Additionally, no significant baseline differences were observed for receptive vocabulary skills (t(38)
= 1.02, p = 0.32, d = 0.32), working memory (Nonverbal WM: t(36) = 0.60, p = 0.55, d = 0.20;
Verbal WM: t(36) = 0.42, p = 0.68, d = 0.14), or academic achievement (Letter Word: t(36) = 0.76, p
= 0.45, d = 0.24; Applied Problem: t(36) = 0.69, p = 0.49, d = 0.23).
In terms of baseline differences in parent-reported measures, there were no statistically
significant differences in parent-reported social-emotional problems (0.38 < ps < 0.81; 0.07 < ds <
0.27). EC skills reported on the BRIEF were not statistically different between groups (0.08 < ps <
0.94; 0.02 < ds < 0.58). However, the training group had more parent-reported problems related to
inhibitory control compared to controls, and this trend-level effect was moderate in size (t(36) =
1.78, p = 0.08, d = 0.58). No baseline differences in behavioral task performance were observed
between groups (0.13 < ps < 0.99; 0.02 < ds < 0.49). There were no baseline differences in ERN as
measured by the Flanker (t(40) = 0.90, p = 0.38, d = 0.29) and Go/No-Go (t(42) = 0.68, p = 0.50, d
= 0.20) tasks. The control group had a significantly larger high conflict N2 (t(40) = 3.05, p = .004, d
= 0.98) compared to the training group on the Flanker task, but did not differ in ∆N2 (t(40) = 0.56,

33

p = 0.58, d = 0.17). There were no baseline differences in N2 as measured by the Go/No-Go task
(t(43) = 1.59, p = 0.12, d = 0.47) or ∆N2 (t(41) = 0.83, p = 0.41, d = 0.30).
Behavioral Measures of EC
Ceiling effects were observed for the following behavioral tasks: Hand Game, Bear Dragon,
Whisper, Knock-Tap, Reverse Categorization, and Yes/No. Therefore, the distribution of these
variables was negatively skewed. Reflected logarithmic transformations were conducted for these
variables, but the transformations were not successful in normalizing the distributions. Thus, nontransformed values were used for all analyses. Mean-level changes across near, intermediate, and farintermediate transfer tasks are presented in Table A3. Graphical depictions of mean-level changes in
behavioral tasks assessing attentional control skills and inhibitory control skills are presented in
Figures 2 and 3, respectively.
As mentioned previously, very few studies have evaluated the developmental sensitivity of
behavioral measures of EC in preschool-aged children (Carlson, 2005). Therefore, examining the
impact of training on each behavioral task rather than creating a composite score was important to
filling this gap in the literature. Additionally, a priori hypotheses regarding effect on transfer type
(i.e., prediction that children would demonstrate the greatest improvements on near transfer tasks)
were of interest in analyses.
Near transfer tasks. To test the effects of time (baseline vs. post) on near transfer task
performance by group (training vs. control), mixed repeated measure ANOVAs were conducted (see
Table A4). A significant main effect of time indicated improvement in Simon Says (F(1, 40) = 5.42, p
= 0.03, η2p = 0.12). Nonsignificant, moderate effects of time were observed for Walk-a-Line (F(1,
40) = 2.42, p = 0.13, η2p = 0.06) and Backward Digit Span tasks (F(1, 40) = 2.18, p = 0.15, η2p =
0.06) such that performance increased with time. Based on descriptive statistics (see Table A3 and
Figure B2), these changes appeared to be driven by the training group since improvements were

34

moderate in effect size as compared to changes in the control group, which exhibited either no
change or change that was small in effect. However, contrary to hypotheses, no statistically
significant time by group interaction effects were observed.
Intermediate transfer tasks. Mixed repeated measure ANOVA results indicated a main
effect of time on the Bear-Dragon (F(1, 35) = 5.18, p = 0.03, η2p = 0.13), DCCS (F(1, 39) = 8.27, p
= .007, η2p = 0.18), and Day/Night tasks (F(1, 35) = 7.05, p = 0.01, η2p = 0.17). Specifically, children
exhibited a significant reduction the Bear-Dragon task at post-assessment, but this did not
significantly differ by group (F(1, 35) = 1.84, p = 0.18, η2p = 0.05). It is important to note that there
was low variability in performance on this task and evidence of ceiling effects. In other words, a
majority of children achieved the maximum score, and only four children declined in their
performance on this task. Both groups demonstrated significantly higher scores at post-assessment
compared to baseline for DCCS and Day/Night tasks. The training group exhibited significantly
greater improvement on the Day/Night task compared to the control group (F(1, 35) = 5.45, p =
0.03, η2p = 0.14), but DCCS improvement was not different between groups (F(1, 39) = 0.21, p =
0.65, η2p = 0.01).
Far-intermediate transfer tasks. In terms of performance on far-intermediate transfer
tasks, post-assessment scores on the Head-Toes-Knees-Shoulder task (F(1, 40) = 7.02, p = 0.01, η2p
= 0.15) and FIST Selection 2 variable (F(1, 34) = 9.53, p < .001, η2p = 0.22) were significantly higher
compared to baseline for both groups. A nonsignificant, trend-level effect of time was also observed
for the Tower of Hanoi task such that performance increased over time (F(1, 35) = 3.61, p = 0.07),
η2p = 0.22). Mixed repeated measure ANOVA results indicated that the training group exhibited
significantly greater improvement in the Head-Toes-Knees-Shoulder task (F(1, 40) = 5.40, p = 0.03,

35

η2p = 0.12) whereas the control group demonstrated a nonsignificant, trend-level improvement on
the FIST Selection 2 score that was moderate in effect size.
Interim summary of results from behavioral measures of EC. A priori predictions
stated that the training group would demonstrate the greatest improvements in near transfer tasks.
Contrary to hypotheses, the training group did not exhibit improvements that were dependent on
type of transfer task. The largest, and only significant time by group effects, were observed in the
Day/Night intermediate transfer task and HTKS far-intermediate transfer task such that the training
group demonstrated significantly larger improvements on these tasks.
Neurophysiological Measures of EC
Behavioral performance. Behavioral performance on the Go/No-Go and Flanker tasks are
presented in Table A5. Since the Go/No-Go and Flanker tasks were not practiced during training
and no skills related to improving accuracy on computer tasks were targeted during training,
behavioral performance on these tasks was considered a far transfer measure. I anticipated that
children in the training group would demonstrate improved behavioral performance in both the
Go/No-Go and Flanker tasks compared to children in the control group.
Effects of training across time (baseline vs. post) and by group (training vs. control) on
behavioral performance measures were evaluated using mixed repeated measure ANOVAs (see
Table A6). For the Go/No-Go task, results indicated a significant effect of time for reaction time on
correct (F(1, 45) = 4.73, p = 0.04, η2p = 0.10), post-error (F(1, 45) = 8.88, p = .005, η2p = 0.17), and
post-correct trials (F(1, 45) = 9.79, p = .003, η2p = 0.18) such that all children exhibited significant
reductions in reaction time at post-assessment compared to baseline. However, these reductions did
not significantly differ between groups. In the Flanker task, results indicated a significant effect of
time for number of errors (F(1, 45) = 38.84, p < .001, η2p = 0.46) and correct trials (F(1, 45) = 22.90,
p < .001, η2p = 0.34), total accuracy (F(1, 45) = 27.86, p < .001, η2p = 0.38), and post-error accuracy
36

(F(1, 45) = 55.64, p < .001, η2p = 0.55) such that all children exhibited significant increases in total
accuracy (fewer error trials and more correct trials) and improvements in post-error accuracy. Similar
to the Go/No-Go task, there were no significant time by group interaction effects.
These results suggest that children demonstrated greater improvements on the Flanker task
compared to the Go/No-Go task. It is important to acknowledge these differences given that these
tasks may have challenged different skills related to EC. Additional analyses suggested that overall,
children exhibited higher total accuracy on the Go/No-Go compared to the Flanker task (baseline:
t(46) = 11.09, p < .001; post-assessment: t(46) = 7.03, p < .001). These results suggested that the
Flanker task was more challenging for children in this developmental age group. Therefore, it is
likely that behavioral performance indices from the Flanker task captured greater variability in
individual differences in these measures compared to the Go/No-Go task and may explain the
greater improvements observed in the Flanker task. In other words, measures that have greater
variability also allow for more opportunities for change.
ERN. The location of maximal amplitude for the ERN was evaluated using a 2 (trial type:
error; correct) X 5 (site: Fz; FCz; Cz; CPz; Pz) repeated measures ANOVA model and follow-up
paired sample t-tests. A detailed review of results supporting the use of ERN analyses at FCz is
provided in Appendix F. The response-locked waveforms from the Go/No-Go and Flanker tasks
can be seen in Figure B4.
Descriptive statistics (see Table A7) suggested a pattern of larger Go/No-Go and Flanker
ERN over time, but contrary to stated hypotheses, no significant effects of time or time by group
interactions were observed (see Table A8).
N2. The location of maximal amplitude for the N2 was evaluated using a 2 (trial type: error;
correct) X 5 (site: Fz; FCz; Cz; CPz; Pz) repeated measures ANOVA model and follow-up paired
sample t-tests. A detailed review of results supporting the use of N2 analyses at FCz is provided in

37

Appendix F. The stimulus-locked waveforms from the Go/No-Go and Flanker tasks can be seen in
Figure B5.
Contrary to a priori predictions, mixed repeated measure ANOVA results indicated that the
Go/No-Go high conflict N2 (F(1, 42) = 5.62, p = 0.02, η2p = 0.12) and ∆N2 (F(1, 42) = 14.45, p <
.001, η2p = 0.26) was more negative (larger) at post-assessment (see Table A8). However, this
increase in N2 amplitude was not significantly different between groups (N2: F(1, 42) = 0.32, p =
0.57, η2p = 0.01; ∆N2: F(1, 42) = 1.42, p = 0.24, η2p = 0.03). In contrast, the high conflict N2
assessed by the Flanker task was more positive at post-assessment (F(1, 37) = 4.16, p = 0.05, η2p =
0.10). A significant time by group interaction suggested that this reduction in the N2 amplitude was
specific to children in the control group (F(1, 37) = 5.69, p = 0.02, η2p = 0.13) whereas the children
in the training group did not exhibit any significant changes in Flanker N2 amplitude.
Interim summary of results from neurophysiological measures of EC. A priori
predictions stated that children in the training group would exhibit larger increases in the ERN
amplitude, and greater reductions in the N2 amplitude compared to controls. Additionally, since
current literature is unequivocal about the relationship between the ERN and N2, particularly in
young children, it was predicted that if the ERN and N2 did exhibit changes in the same direction,
this result would suggest that they index similar processes. No significant time by group interactions
were observed for ERN measures. A significant time by group interaction was observed for the
Flanker N2 such that the control group demonstrated a greater reduction in the high conflict N2
compared to the training group. Given the baseline difference in the high conflict N2 (control group
exhibited a larger Flanker N2 at baseline), it is likely that this result reflects regression to the mean.
Both groups demonstrated significant increases in the Go/No-Go N2 measures over time. Taken
together, these results are inconsistent with predicted hypotheses.

38

Informant-reported Measures of EC
Parent report of EC skills. A priori predictions stated that the training group would exhibit
reductions in parent-reported problems both those related to EC skills and social-emotional
functioning. Graphical depictions of mean-level changes in parent-reported EC skills are presented
in Figure B6. Mixed repeated measure ANOVA results suggested a main effect of time from
baseline to 1-month follow-up such that significant reductions in parent-reported problems related
to EC skills were observed (see Table A10). A significant time by group interaction was observed for
inhibitory control skills (F(1, 34) = 7.64, p = .009, η2p = 0.18) such that the training group exhibited
a greater reduction in parent-reported problems with inhibition compared to the control group.
Nonsignificant, trend-level time by group interactions that were moderate in effect were observed
for emotional control skills (F(1, 34) = 2.89, p = 0.10, η2p = 0.08) and total score on the BRIEF
(F(1, 34) = 3.73, p = 0.06, η2p = 0.10). These results suggested that the training group demonstrated
increases in general EC skills and, specifically, the ability to engage in inhibitory control and emotion
regulation skills 1 month following the training compared to the control group.
Mixed repeated measure ANOVAs were conducted to test whether these effects were
maintained 3 months following the training. Results indicated no statistically significant main effects
of time across all scales such that parent-reported EC skills were comparable at 1 month and 3
months after training. A nonsignificant, trend-level increase in problems with working memory was
observed that varied by group such that the training group exhibited an increase in working memory
difficulties (F(1, 31) = 2.90, p = 0.10, η2p = 0.09). Similarly, a nonsignificant moderate increase in
problems with planning and organization skills was observed in the training group compared to
control (F(1, 31) = 1.97, p = 0.17, η2p = 0.06).

39

Parent report of social-emotional functioning. Graphical depictions of mean-level
changes in parent-reported social-emotional adjustment problems are presented in Figure B7. Mixed
repeated measure ANOVA results indicated significant reductions in all scales related to socialemotional problem behaviors from baseline to 1-month follow-up (see Table A10). Nonsignificant,
trend-level time by group interactions were observed for anxious/depressed problems (F(1, 41) =
3.53, p = 0.07, η2p = 0.08), social problems (F(1, 41) = 3.66, p = 0.06, η2p = 0.08), and attention
problems (F(1, 41) = 3.77, p = 0.06, η2p = 0.08), such that the training group exhibited greater
reductions in these areas compared to the control group. Similarly, nonsignificant, but moderate
effects of time by group interactions were observed for internalizing problems (F(1, 41) = 2.74, p =
0.11, η2p = 0.06) and externalizing problems (F(1, 41) = 2.38, p = 0.13, η2p = 0.06) such that the
training group exhibited greater reductions in these areas compared to the control group.
Mixed repeated measure ANOVAs were conducted to test whether effects were maintained
3 months following the training. Results suggested significant reductions in withdrawn/depressed
behaviors (F(1, 31) = 4.54, p = 0.04, η2p = 0.13), social problems (F(1, 31) = 8.56, p = 0.01, η2p =
0.22), and internalizing behaviors (F(1, 31) = 4.14, p = 0.05, η2p = 0.12) from 1-month to 3-months
post-assessment. A nonsignificant, trend-level reduction was also observed for parent-reported
anxious/depressed problems (F(1, 31) = 3.05, p = 0.09, η2p = 0.09). These reductions did not
significantly differ by group.
Teacher report of EC skills. A priori predictions stated that children in the training group
would have lower meal-levels of teacher reported problems. Independent t-test analyses indicated
that teacher-reported BRIEF scales at 3 months follow-up were not statistically significantly
different between the training and control group (0.31 < ps < 0.87; 0.07 < ds < 0.39) (Table A11).

40

Teacher report of social-emotional functioning. Independent t-test analyses indicated
that teacher-reported CBCL scales at 3 months follow-up were not statistically significantly different
between training and the control group (0.15 < ps < 0.99; 0.00 < ds < 0.66) (Table A11).
Nonsignificant, but moderate effects were observed for externalizing problems (t(25) = 1.24, p =
0.23, d = -0.51) such that the control had fewer teacher-reported problems with externalizing
behaviors. In contrast, the training group had nonsignificant, moderate effects of lower teacherreported difficulties with withdrawn/depressed (t(25) = 1.16, p = 0.26, d = 0.51) and somatic
problem behaviors (t(25) = 1.49, p = 0.15, d = 0.55) compared to the control group.
Interim summary of results from informant-reported measures of EC. I hypothesized
that children participating in targeted training would have greater reductions in parent-reported
problems, and lower mean-levels of teacher reported problems at follow-up compared to control.
While not statistically significant, moderate effects of time by group interactions were detected for
greater reductions in parent-reported problems with inhibitory and emotional control in the training
group compared to the control group. Similarly, nonsignificant, moderate effects of time by group
interactions were observed for internalizing and externalizing behaviors such that the training group
demonstrated greater reductions in these problems compared to the control group. These results
were largely consistent with initial predictions. However, in contrast to hypotheses, teacher-reported
concerns at 3 months follow-up were not statistically different between groups. Nonsignificant,
moderate effects were observed for fewer withdrawn/depressed and somatic problems in the
training group, and higher externalizing problems in the training group compared to the control
group.
Associations Between Behavioral, Neural, and Parent-reported Measures of EC
In order to better understand the extent to which the ERN and N2 are measures of EC, an
exploratory aim was to examine how changes in the ERN and N2 were associated with observed

41

changes in behavioral and informant-reported measures of EC. Given the sample size, I was
underpowered to evaluate whether these associations were moderated by group. Therefore,
exploratory analyses focused on understanding the individual differences in change that occurred in
neural measures of EC across time and whether these changes cohered with behavioral and
informant-reported measures of EC. I anticipated that greater improvements in behavioral measures
of EC would be associated with greater changes in ERP measures (increases in ERN and decreases
in the N2 if they index distinct facets of EC, or in similar directions if they index similar EC skills).
Similarly, greater reduction in parent-reported adjustment and EC problems would be associated
with greater changes in ERP measures. Lastly, greater improvements in behavioral measures of EC
would be associated with greater reductions in parent-reported adjustment and EC problems. While
I did not have hypotheses about specific measures within methodology, I anticipated that correlated
change across method would be stronger between methods that were closer in level of
measurement. In other words, the strength of correlated change would be observed in the following
order from weakest to strongest: parent-reported and neural measures of EC; behavioral and neural
measures of EC; and parent-reported and behavioral measures of EC.
Neurophysiological and behavioral measures of EC.

Behavioral tasks tapping attentional control skills. Bivariate correlations were conducted
between the change scores (post-assessment minus baseline) of neurophysiological measures of EC
and behavioral measures of attentional control (Table A12). The Go/No-Go ERN was significantly
associated with changes in total FIST score (r = -0.35, p = .05) such that greater increases in the
Go/No-Go ERN were associated with improvements in the FIST task (Figure H1). Surprisingly,
improvement in the DCCS Border measure was associated with reductions in the Flanker ERN (r =
0.35, p = .05) (Figure H2), a similar nonsignificant trend was observed with improvement in the
Yes/No task (r = 0.30, p = 0.08). In terms of the N2, there were no significant associations between

42

the Go/No-Go N2 measures and behavioral performance on attentional control tasks. Reductions
in the Flanker ∆N2 were associated with improvement in the DCCS task (r = 0.35, p = 0.04) (Figure
H3), and a similar nonsignificant trend was observed with improvement in the Tower of Hanoi task
(r = 0.32, p = 0.08). Overall, changes in neurophysiological measures of EC were not associated with
any near transfer attentional control tasks. Furthermore, changes in the Go/No-Go and Flanker
ERN had contrasting associations with improvements in attentional control task performance.

Behavioral tasks tapping inhibitory control skills. No significant associations between
changes in neurophysiological measures of EC and behavioral measures of inhibitory control skills
were observed (Table A13). Nonsignificant trend-level associations were detected between
reductions in the Go/No-Go ∆ERN and Flanker ∆N2 and improvement in the HTKS trial measure
(r = 0.28, p = 0.09 r = 0.29, p = 0.09, respectively) (Figures H4-H5).
Neurophysiological measures of EC and parent-reported measures.

Parent report of EC skills. Bivariate correlations were conducted between the change
scores of neurophysiological measures of EC and parent report of EC skills (1-month follow-up
minus baseline scores) assessed by the BRIEF (Table A14). No significant or trend-level associations
between changes in neurophysiological measures and parent report of EC were observed.

Parent report of social-emotional behaviors. Bivariate correlations were conducted
between the change scores of neurophysiological measures of EC and parent report of socialemotional functioning (1-month follow-up minus baseline scores) assessed by the CBCL (Table
A15). Increases in the high conflict N2 assessed by the Go/No-Go task were significantly associated
with decreases parent-reported social problems (r = 0.32, p = 0.05) (Figure H6). Nonsignificant,
trend-level associations were observed between increases in the Go/No-Go ERN and fewer parentreported social problems (r = 0.27, p =0.10) and rule-breaking behaviors (r = 0.27, p =0.10) (Figures

43

H7-H8). In contrast, nonsignificant, trend-level decreases in the Flanker ∆N2 were associated with
fewer parent-reported problems with rule breaking (r = -0.29, p =0.09) (Figure H9).
Behavioral and parent-reported measures of EC and social-emotional behaviors.

Behavioral tasks tapping attentional control skills and parent-reported measures.
With a few exceptions, a majority of changes in behavioral tasks assessing attentional control skills
were unrelated to changes in parent-reported BRIEF and CBCL scores (Table A18). Improvement
in the Day/Night task was significantly associated with reduction in parent-reported CBCL
problems related to rule-breaking (r = -0.41, p = 0.01) and aggression (r = -0.41, p = 0.03). In
contrast, improvement in the FIST task was associated with more reported problems related to
working memory (r = 0.48, p = .003) and attentional shifting (r = 0.45, p = 0.01).

Behavioral tasks tapping inhibitory control skills and parent-reported measures. A
majority of changes in behavioral tasks assessing inhibitory control skills were unrelated to changes
in parent-reported BRIEF and CBCL scores (Table A19). Improvement on the Walk-A-Line task
was significantly associated with reductions in parent-reported problems with inhibition, overall EC
skills, social concerns, attention, and aggression (0.32 < rs < 0.40; p < .05). Surprisingly,
improvement in Simon Says was significantly associated with greater parent-reported problems with
aggression (r = 0.43, p = .006). In contrast, improvement in the Hand Game was significantly
associated with reductions in problems with attentional shifting (r = -0.44, p = .007) and overall EC
skills (r = -0.36, p = 0.03). All other changes in behavioral tasks assessing inhibitory control skills
were unrelated to changes in parent-reported EC.
Interim summary of associations across methodologies. As an exploratory aim, I did
not have hypotheses regarding associations between specific measures. However, broader a priori
hypotheses stated that greater changes in neural indicators of EC would be associated with greater
changes in behavioral measures of EC and parent-reported adjustment.

44

Contrary to hypotheses, the pattern of correlated change associations between neural and
behavioral measures of EC (attentional and inhibitory control tasks) were difficult to discern given
their inconsistency. Overall, the results suggested that changes in neural measures of EC were
unrelated to changes in attentional and inhibitory control behavioral tasks.
Similar to the lack of correlated changes between neural and behavioral measures of EC, no
consistent pattern of associations was observed between changes in neural and parent-reported
measures. These results suggested that changes in parent-reported concerns during this time are
likely independent from changes in the ERN and N2.
With a few exceptions, a majority of changes in behavioral measures of EC were unrelated to
changes in parent-reported measures of EC and social-emotional adjustment. Taken together, these
results indicate that there are substantial individual differences in the type of change that occurred
over this time period. While there were significant changes (primarily in behavioral measures of EC
and parent-reported concerns) reported during this time period, these changes appeared to occur
exclusive of one another.

45

DISCUSSION
The purpose of the present study was to better understand the neurobehavioral processes
that may underlie training-induced changes in EC. This investigation was the first to use a shortterm training to explicitly test the functional validity of the ERN and N2 as markers of EC, and to
evaluate training-induced changes in EC using a multimethod approach. The primary focus of the
investigation was not necessarily to develop or assess the effectiveness of an EC intervention, but
rather to use an innovative method of evaluating the validity of the ERN and N2 as markers of EC.
The method of testing the validity of the ERN and N2 was dependent on assessing the training
effects, which was similar to the methods used to assess the effectiveness of an intervention.
Overall, effects of training-induced changes in EC were small. This contrasts results from
previous training studies using similar measures (Rueda, Checa, & Cómbita, 2012; Rueda, Rothbart,
McCandliss, Saccomanno, & Posner, 2005; Thorell, Lindqvist, Bergman Nutley, Bohlin, &
Klingberg, 2009) that reported changes in behavioral and neural measures that were larger in effect
(d = 0.99 and d = 1.36, respectively). The present results are consistent with more recent reviews
demonstrating that computer-based cognitive training targeting working memory and other ECrelated skills do not produce significant effects of improved cognitive abilities, attention, EC-related
skills, behavior, or academic functioning in children (Cortese et al., 2015; Melby-Lervåg & Hulme,
2013; Rapport, Orban, Kofler, Friedman, 2013) and young adults (Redick et al., 2013). A recent
meta-analysis also indicated that age was a significant moderator of the effects of working memory
training on near transfer tasks such that smaller effects were observed in children compared to
young and elderly adults (Melby-Lervåg, Redick, & Hulme, 2016). A summary of the results from
each methodology will be presented below, in addition to a synthesis and discussion of these results.

46

Main Effects Within Method Type
Behavioral Measures of EC. Less than half of the selected behavioral tasks demonstrated
significant changes from baseline to post-assessment. Contrary to hypotheses, children did not
demonstrate the greatest improvements on near transfer compared to intermediate or farintermediate transfer tasks. Significant improvements in behavioral task performance in the training
group compared to the control group were observed for an intermediate transfer attentional control
task (Day/Night) and a far-intermediate transfer inhibitory control task (HTKS). Changes in
performance on behavioral tasks did not favor tasks assessing more attentional control skills or
inhibitory control skills. This result may reflect the notion that training targeted both attentional and
inhibitory control skills related to EC. Alternatively, as suggested by previous research, these facets
of EC may be best represented as a unitary factor in preschool (Wiebe, Epsy, & Charak, 2008;
Willoughby, Blair, Wirth, & Greenberg, 2012). The demonstrated intermediate and far-intermediate
transfer is also inconsistent with transfer theory predictions (Klauer, 2001), which limit the extent of
potential transfer to the relationship with near transfer improvement (i.e., using the near transfer
effect size as an estimate). It should be noted that the lack of near transfer improvement makes it
difficult to interpret whether any other observed changes reflect random or systematic effects, rather
than the training itself.
Neurophysiological Measures of EC. Children demonstrated improvement on several
behavioral performance indices assessed using the Go/No-Go and Flanker tasks. Children exhibited
greater improvements in the Flanker task compared to the Go/No-Go task. It is possible that
children reached a ceiling effect in their behavioral performance on the Go/No-Go task, whereas
the Flanker task was more challenging and therefore there was more to improve on with time. In
addition, children tended to become faster with time. Children exhibited faster reaction times on
error and correct trials on the Flanker task whereas they demonstrated faster reaction times on post-

47

error and post-correct trials on the Go/No-Go task. Given that these changes in behavioral
performance across time was not statistically significant between groups, these changes are likely
attributable to maturation and/or retest effects.
Changes in neurophysiological measures of EC were observed in N2 measures. Specifically,
children demonstrated reductions in the Flanker high conflict N2 over time. This effect was driven
by the significant reduction in the high conflict N2 in the control group. Children also demonstrated
an increase in the Go/No-Go high conflict N2, but this change did not significantly differ by group.
Increases were observed in the Flanker ERN, but these changes were not specific to group
condition. These results are inconsistent with a priori predictions, which stated that the training
group would exhibit a larger ERN and reduced N2. A priori hypotheses suggested that the ERN and
N2 may index different facets of EC (attentional control and inhibitory control, respectively).
However, given the present results there are several possible explanations. First, the ERN and N2
may instead index similar EC-related skills. Evidence that the Go/No-Go ERN and Go/No-Go N2
were related at both baseline and post-assessments (see Tables H1-H2) support the notion that
ERN and N2 may measure similar processes. However, the Flanker ERN and Flanker N2 were not
related at baseline or post-assessments (see Tables I3-I4), indicating that these neural indices were
not reliably associated with one another within this task. Second, improvements in behavioral
measures of EC over time may not be supported by changes in the ERN and N2. Third, more
advanced data reduction and analytic techniques may be required to address the high variability in
ERP amplitude observed in this sample. There are a number of factors that contributed to the large
variance of these measures, such as the variability in ERP amplitude latency often reported in young
children. More advanced analytic techniques that could account for latency differences would be
helpful in future investigations. Fourth, the ERN and N2 may not be sensitive enough to measure
EC-related skills, specifically attentional and inhibitory control, in this developmental period.

48

While the present findings are inconsistent with a priori predictions, the results indicate that
ERP measures, particularly the N2, are quite dynamic during this developmental time period. This
contrasts research in adults that suggests that these ERP measures are stable over time (Weinberg &
Hajcak, 2011). In addition, results support the notion that the Go/No-Go and Flanker tasks elicit
differences in behavioral performance that may manifest at the neurophysiological level in young
children, and highlight the importance of using multiple tasks to elicit the same ERPs of interest.
The multitude of differences between the Go/No-Go and Flanker tasks such as ERP amplitude,
ERP change, and behavioral performance further demonstrate the value of using multiple cognitive
tasks to better understand the functioning meaning of the ERN and N2 in young children. Results
from the present study support the notion that the Go/No-Go and Flanker tasks likely require
children to engage in different types of EC skills that manifest at behavioral and neural levels. This
contrasts research in adults suggesting that the same ERP assessed across different types of
cognitive tasks indexes the same skill or neural process across tasks (Riesel, Weinberg, Endrass,
Meyer, & Hajcak, 2013). Lastly, the present findings provide insight into how little we understand
about measures of neural processes such as the ERN and N2 in young children. The ERN and N2
may not be the optimal measures to use as primary outcome variables for future training studies
using children in this age range. Until we understand more about how to better analyze and elicit
ERPs in young children, funding agencies and other stakeholders should be cautious interpreting
intervention effects based on neural measures of change in early childhood.
Informant-reported Measures. As predicted, the training group demonstrated significant
reductions in parent-reported inhibition problems compared to the control group. Nonsignificant,
trend-level reductions were also observed for parent-reported emotional control problems. Followup exploratory analyses examined the extent to which training effects on parent-reported EC
problems were maintained at 3-months follow-up. Reductions were maintained in the training

49

group, but the control group also demonstrated reductions such that group differences in parentreported BRIEF scores were not observed. Given that the training group had a nonsignificant, but
moderate effect of higher parent-reported inhibition problems at baseline, it is possible that the
present results reflect regression to the mean.
Results also indicated significant reductions in parent-reported social-emotional concerns 1month following training. These reductions were not statistically significant between groups, but the
training group demonstrated trend-level, moderate reductions in parent-reported anxious/depressed
problems, social problems, and attention problems compared to the control group. Follow-up
exploratory analyses examined the extent to which training effects on parent-reported socialemotional concerns were maintained at 3-months follow-up. While training effects were maintained,
the control group demonstrated reductions in parent-reported social-emotional concerns. Thus, no
significant differences between the training and control group were observed. These results also
support evidence of regression to the mean. Additionally, because parents were not blinded to group
assignment, it is possible that the initial reduction in parent-reported social emotional problems in
the training group reflected placebo or demand characteristics effects. In other words, parents of
children in the training group may have believed that participating in a week-long training targeting
EC skills would likely benefit their child, and this belief may have biased their reports such that the
reduction in problem behaviors was overestimated.
Contrary to a priori predictions, there were no statistically significant group differences in
teacher-reported EC skills and social-emotional functioning 3 months following training.
Nonsignificant, moderate effects of higher reported externalizing behaviors in the training group
were observed. In contrast, nonsignificant, moderate effects of lower reported withdrawn/depressed
and somatic complaint problems in the training group were also observed. There are several
explanations for these inconsistent results. First, exploratory analyses revealed that while effects of

50

reduced parent-reported concerns were maintained 3 months after training, the training and the
control group no longer differed in parent-reported problems with EC skills of social-emotional
functioning. Teacher-reported measures were collected 3 months after training in order to permit
enough time for teachers to become familiar with their students. Therefore, it is possible that the
lack of difference between training and the control group in terms of teacher-reported problems
reflects the similar lack of difference in parent-reported concerns between groups at the 3-month
follow-up assessment. Second, the teacher-reported results may provide further support that the
greater reduction in parent-reported problems for the training group observed 1 month following
training is attributable to demand characteristics. When recruited, parents of children in the training
group were told that their children were participating in a “camp” that targeted self-regulation and
EC skills important for kindergarten. Therefore, it is possible that parents anticipated that their
children should improve in these dimensions following the training.
Associations Between Changes in Multimethod Measures Across Time
Behavioral and Neurophysiological Measures of EC. A majority of correlated changes
in ERP and behavioral task measures were unrelated. Of the five associations that were significant,
the patterns across behavioral tasks assessing either attentional or inhibitory control skills were not
consistent with hypotheses. Specifically, decreases rather than predicted increases in ERP measures
were associated with improvements in behavioral task scores, with one exception. Increases in the
Go/No-Go ERN were associated with improvements in the FIST task. Of the significant correlated
change associations, changes in the ERN and N2 occurred in similar directions, lending some
support to the notion that they may index similar processes during this developmental period. No
patterns emerged that were specific to behavioral tasks that assessed attentional versus inhibitory
control skills.

51

There are a number of possible explanations and implications of these results. First, the
limited variability of the behavioral measures of EC due to ceiling effects likely reduced the ability to
detect effects. Second, it is possible that changes in behavioral measures of EC are not dependent on
changes in the ERN and N2, and vice versa. Changes in behavioral and neural measures of EC that
occurred from baseline to post-assessment may occur at different rates. The maturation of these
processes may manifest differently not only by time, but also by method, and it would be important
for future research to understand whether change assessed by one type of method is dependent on
changes in another (e.g., neural changes supporting behavioral changes, vice versa, or neither).
Parent-Reported Measures of Adjustment and Neurophysiological Measures of EC.
The unexpected results of correlated change between ERP measures and behavioral task measures
discussed above is further complicated by the correlated changes observed between ERP and
parent-reported measures. First, a majority of correlated changes in ERP and parent-reported
measures (BRIEF and CBCL) were unrelated. Of the four associations that were significant, some
were consistent with hypotheses while others were not. Specifically, increases in the Go/No-Go
ERN were associated with fewer parent-reported social problems and rule-breaking behaviors.
Similar to the Go/No-Go ERN, increases in the Go/No-Go N2 were associated with fewer parentreported social problems. However, reductions in the Go/No-Go N2 were associated with rulebreaking behaviors. No correlated change associations were observed between ERP measures and
parent-reported BRIEF scores. While I was underpowered to conduct further moderator analyses to
examine whether correlated change associations differed by condition, scatterplots (Figures H1-H9)
indicated that associations were similar between conditions.
Behavioral Measures of EC and Parent-Reported Measures of Adjustment. Children
who made greater gains in behavioral task performance were anticipated to also exhibit the greatest
reductions in parent-reported concerns. Similar to the other reported correlated changes across

52

method type, changes in behavioral task scores were unrelated to changes in parent-reported
concerns. Of the five behavioral tasks that exhibited significant change correlations scores, most
were in the expected direction. Specifically, increases in behavioral task score were associated with
decreases in parent-reported concerns. Exceptions included the FIST and Simon Says. Improvement
in the Walk-a-Line task was reliably associated with lower parent-reported problems across several
BRIEF and CBCL scales. It is possible that the consistency of associations observed within this task
reflects the high variability of the way performance is measured. Specifically, Walk-a-Line uses
length time (seconds) as a measure of inhibitory control. Therefore, this task allows for more
variability in terms of score compared to a task that has a restricted range (such as a total possible
score from 0-8 like the Yes/No task).
Limitations
An ongoing issue in the developmental literature, particularly for early childhood research, is
how to resolve the conflict of using developmentally appropriate measures to elicit target skills of
interest and simultaneously ensuring the validity of such measures to assess these skills.
Furthermore, a fundamental measurement problem in EC research is the conflation between
specific processes of interest and foundational skills that are central to those specific processes that
cannot be disentangled given the demands of a chosen EC task (Epsy, Clark, Garza, Nelson, James,
& Choi, 2016). In the present study, this problem made it challenging to determine the meaning of
null and non-confirmatory results. For example, there are several interpretations regarding the lack
of dissociation between the ERN and N2. First, attentional control and inhibitory control skills may
not be discrete constructs during preschool-age. Second, attentional and inhibitory skills may be
distinguishable, but researchers have yet to devise measures that are developmentally sensitive
enough to detect the differences. And third, the ERN and N2 may measures similar processes
related to EC. Another significant limitation is that the present study failed to find evidence of near

53

transfer improvement, which renders it unfeasible to determine whether any other observed changes
reflected random or systematic effects, rather than training effects. It is also possible that initial a
priori predictions of what constitutes near versus far transfer change were incorrect, and the
processes that changed as a result of the training were different than anticipated.
Another complication of the current study is that children exhibited substantial variability in
ERP amplitude such that standard deviations were significantly larger average amplitudes, which
meant that detecting any significant effects would require a much larger sample. Important to the
study was understanding why children might have such significant variability in these ERP measures.
Therefore, it was critical to keep as many children as possible in analyses while still attempting to
adhere to typical parameters adopted in the current literature (i.e., behavioral accuracy cutoffs or
specific number of useable trials). There are a number of methodological concerns in using ERP
measures in this age range, with some researchers suggesting that they may be unreliable, and thus
an invalid assessment of EC-related skills. However, examining the unreliability of the measure may
be critical to understanding how these processes unfold. Unreliability can come in a number of
forms such as a lack of consistency in latency and peak of an ERP from trial to trial, or lack of
reliability from one time-point to another. Both forms may be quite meaningful, particularly in
tracking the development of the ERN and N2. This issue impacted the results of the current study
because average ERP amplitudes likely did not capture the exact window of where the ERP
occurred across all child participants. In other words, one child may have had a much earlier latency
of onset of an ERP compared to another child that had a much later latency. As a result, the chosen
time window during which the ERP was averaged may not accurately reflect the process of engaging
in EC skills for that child. Ideally, one could use measurement techniques to select time windows
specific to each child’s peak ERP amplitude. Unfortunately, the analytic techniques required to

54

analyze the ERP data in this manner were out of the scope of the present investigation. However,
one would anticipate that variability across trial and lack of reliability decreases with increasing age.
Despite attempts at randomization, there were several notable baseline differences between
training and the control group that may have impacted the present results. Specifically, the control
group had a significantly larger Flanker N2 at baseline, and the effect of time by group observed for
the Flanker N2 was driven by the reduction in the N2 in the control group. It is likely that the
significant time by group interaction reflected regression to the mean for children in the control
group. Another limitation that impacted the study was the lack of blinded group assignment. Thus,
problems with demand characteristics were of concern. While significant reductions in parentreported concerns at 1-month follow-up appeared specific to the training group, there were two
alternative explanations to suggest demand characteristics played a role. First, treatment gains in the
training group were not significantly different from that of the control group at 3-months follow-up,
perhaps suggesting that parents initially overestimated the reduction in problem behaviors given
assumptions that participation in targeted training would increase EC skills. Second, teacherreported results indicated no significant differences between the training and control group.
Teachers were blind to conditions, so their responses were likely not impacted by demand
characteristics. Unfortunately, this limitation was specific to the study design and could not be
corrected post-hoc. Similarly, problems with ceiling effects were uncorrectable using statistical
analyses. On several behavioral tasks, children had already mastered the task at baseline, reducing the
likelihood that these tasks could capture variability of individual differences and that children would
change in their performance from baseline to post-assessment. However, given that there is limited
research on the level of task difficulty and sensitivity of multiple behavioral tasks to assess EC skills
in this age range, the ceiling effects observed in the present study are useful for future research.
Specifically, if researchers are interested in evaluating the effects of a targeted EC training, they may

55

wish to select tasks that demonstrated greater variability and change within the current sample (e.g.,
FIST, HTKS, Simon Says) to maximize the likelihood of capturing individual differences in EC skills
at this age.
Lastly, the main limitation of using a passive control group rather than an active control
group is that the study design does not control for other factors related to targeted training such as
engagement with training staff and additional visits to the laboratory space. Attempts were made to
minimize the impact of this limitation, such as ensuring that training staff did not act as
experimenters in baseline and post-assessments. Additionally, using a passive control group is a
critical first step for evaluating the effect of interventions prior to using an active control group.
Specifically, a passive control group controls for any changes due to maturation and practice; as both
intervention and active control groups are subject to maturation and practice effects, these must be
ruled out prior to comparing an intervention to an active control group. Results from the present
study failed to establish a proof-of-concept for predicted training effects on the ERN and N2, and
therefore, suggest that a more rigorous active control design would produce no effect of training on
these neurophysiological indices of interest.
Future Directions
Despite the increased prominence of EC-related constructs in the literature, particularly in
research focusing on the early development of EC-related skills and their implication for later life
outcomes, there are few studies that provide any data or recommendations about measurements to
assess these skills in preschool-age children. One of the first comprehensive investigations in
children aged 2 to 6 was conducted by Carlson (2005). Carlson demonstrated the importance of
systematically examining the task difficulty of commonly used measures of EC-related skills across
different age groups in this period. The battery of behavioral tasks in the present study were selected
to encompass varying levels of task difficulty. The reasons for this were threefold: 1) it was

56

unknown how children selected for poor-to-average EC skills would perform; 2) it was unknown
how performance would change in response to targeted EC training; and 3) some newer behavioral
tasks had not been investigated alongside other commonly used tasks to assess EC in order to
compare differences in task performance in this age group. Findings from the present study suggest
that more research is needed to identify more sensitive behavioral measures of EC skills in young
children. This research could help better guide researchers in selecting tasks for detecting the
development of early EC skills and predicting later adjustment outcomes.
Similarly, more research is needed to understand the development of associated neural
changes that support behavioral changes in EC skills. Specific to ERPs, future studies should use
multiple developmental cognitive tasks within the same sample to elicit ERPs of interest. Findings
from the present study suggest that the ERN and N2 elicited across the Go/No-Go and Flanker
tasks may capture different aspects of EC in young children. It is likely that the task demands of
each of these tasks differ, with the Go/No-Go task engaging more inhibitory control processes and
the Flanker task engaging more attentional control processes. Examining how these task distinctions
might contribute to differences reflected in the ERP amplitudes and associations to behavioral
correlates are important to understanding the functional significance of these ERPs in young
children. Additionally, it is recommended that future developmental ERP studies focus on devising a
standard set of procedures and practical guidelines for data acquisition and analysis in children. For
example, variability in temporal consistency and latency jitter likely had an impact on the variability
observed in the ERN and N2 amplitudes in the present results. Woody filtering techniques (Woody,
1967) time shifts an ERP waveform on each segment to match the averaged ERP template, and then
averages the re-aligned segments (see Lin et al., 2015 for example). Time frequency analyses can then
be used to examine the extent to which signals in the theta band (frequency band of the ERN and
N2) are synchronized, and the impact of latency jitter on signal intensity and amplitude. Within-

57

subject analyses can also be used to better understand trial-to-trial variability in behavioral
performance and the impact changes in an individual’s behavioral performance may have on their
own ERN and N2 components. It would be useful for these types of analytic techniques to be
outlined in the literature as they relate to ERP assessments in young children in order to understand
the high variability in ERP amplitude and latency often reported in early childhood samples.
Lastly, more effort should be made to publish negative and/or non-confirmatory effects,
particularly in intervention and training research. Evidence suggests that the current scientific
literature is complicated by the tendency to publish positive results (Franco, Malhortra, &
Simonovits, 2016), thereby overestimating the true effects of certain phenomena. If researchers and
policy makers want to develop effective methods of increasing EC skills in children that are
supported by empirical evidence, then it is vital that we begin to systematically understand the true
effects of all trainings targeting these skills so that future studies can make modifications guided by
evidence. Results from the present investigation highlight an important point of consideration for
the field. Specifically, there may be a number of ways to improve EC skills in children that do not
necessarily involve training the ability to control behavioral and emotional reactivity. Critical to
determining more effective strategies to improve EC is understanding what factors are primarily
responsible for the maturation of EC skills in children. In other words, what makes children who are
high in EC good at regulating their behaviors and emotions? Do children high in EC simply engage
in inhibition or attentional shifting with higher frequency? Do they have more chances to practice
engaging in their EC skills? The developmental literature has yet to answer these questions despite
extensive knowledge that early EC skills are important to later success in adulthood. Recent research
in adults in the EC training literature suggest that persons high in EC-related skills report lower
frequency of engaging in EC behaviors such as resisting impulses (Imhoff, Schmidt, and
Gerstenberg, 2014), indicating that individuals who are high in EC are not exhibiting increased

58

control of resisting temptations, but rather a decreased experience of temptation overall. Therefore,
researchers suggest that improving EC skills may be better served by training individuals to actively
avoid temptation instead of reactively attempting to inhibit their impulses.
Conclusions
Identifying valid markers of EC in young children is important to not only further our
understanding of the neural processes that support the development of EC skills, but also learn how
to better assess changes in these skills that are either associated with maturation or targeted training.
Results of the present study suggested that the targeted EC training did not substantially impact the
ERN and N2 amplitude. However, it is premature to conclude that the present results support the
notion that inducing change in early EC skills is unattainable given the study’s design and
methodological limitations and weaknesses within the field at large. Instead, the results support that
the ERN and N2 are dynamic measures of EC skills in young children. There was some evidence to
suggest that the ERN and N2 reflect similar processes and may not be dissociable in this age period.
Changes in behavioral measures of EC observed were more common for tasks that demonstrated
greater variability in terms of individual differences in task performance. However, given the
inconsistent pattern of associations across method and measures, it is unclear what factors
contributed to these changes. Significant changes in both neural and behavioral processes have been
identified in this developmental period (Casey, Tottenham, Liston, & Durston, 2005; Casey &
Somerville, 2011) as it relates to the development of EC skills. Therefore, future research would
benefit from continuing to employ multimethod assessment of early EC skills and to develop
measures that are sensitive enough to study change within this age period to better understand the
coherence between brain and behavior processes that support the maturation of EC.

59

APPENDICES

60

APPENDIX A

TABLES

61

Table A1
Sample Size, Age, and Sex of Total Sample Presented by Wave and Sample Number
Training
Control
Age (SD)
% Males
Wave 1
Sample 1
5
5
5.09 (0.48)
40.0
Wave 2
Sample 2
6
3
5.11 (0.33)
33.3
Sample 3
15
14
5.18 (0.34)
62.1
Total
26
22
5.14 (0.37)
52.0

62

Table A2
Performance on Cognitive and Academic Achievement Measures
Measure
PPVT
WPPSI-IV Block
WPPSI-IV Matrix
SB-5 Nonverbal WM
SB-5 Verbal WM
WJ-III Letter Word
WJ-III Applied Problem

Training
M
SD
111.11
10.27
8.28
4.08
11.42
2.47
9.10
2.41
10.67
1.39
106.00
15.82
102.86
18.00

Control
M
SD
107.29
13.14
7.0
3.76
10.0
2.78
8.56
2.99
10.41
2.29
111.41
27.59
107.13
19.29

Total
M
109.10
7.76
10.86
8.86
10.55
108.42
104.70

SD
11.87
3.96
2.66
2.65
1.83
21.73
18.43

Effect Size
d
0.32
0.33
0.54
0.20
0.14
0.24
0.23

Note. PPVT = Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test. WPPSI-IV = Weschler Preschool and Primary
Scale of Intelligence, 4th Edition. SB-5 = Stanford Binet Intelligence Scales for Early Childhood,
5th Edition. WM = Working Memory. WJ = Woodcock Johnson-III Tests of Achievement.

63

Table A3
Descriptive Statistics of Behavioral Task Performance Across Different Transfer Levels in Training and Control Groups from
Baseline to Post-Assessment
Training Baseline
Training Post
Effect Size Control Baseline Control Post Effect Size
Near Transfer
M
SD
M
SD
d
M
SD
M
SD
d
Walk-a-line
14.18
12.69
28.81
43.02
0.46
14.50
9.62
15.96 14.35
0.12
Simon Says
14.85
4.26
17.04
2.99
0.60
15.94
3.04 16.56
2.53
0.22
Hand Game
14.48
1.97
14.71
0.56
0.16
14.69
0.60 14.63
0.50
-0.11
Backward Digit Span
3.05
1.94
3.71
1.59
0.37
3.38
1.96
3.44
1.93
0.03
Reverse Categorization
11.57
0.87
10.86
2.83
-0.34
11.73
0.59 11.53
0.92
-0.26
Intermediate Transfer
Bear/Dragon
10.0
0.00
9.95
0.22
-0.32
9.56
1.26
9.38
1.50
-0.13
Knock-Tap
7.38
1.77
7.90
0.30
0.41
7.69
0.48
7.69
0.60
0.00
DCCS Border
6.96
2.71
8.65
2.72
0.62
6.71
2.70
7.50
1.83
0.34
DCCS Total
17.12
5.41
19.96
3.62
0.62
17.31
4.62 19.38
1.78
0.59
Day/Night
13.57
2.42
15.52
1.36
0.99
13.50
3.37 13.63
4.41
0.03
Shape Stroop
11.24
1.48
11.38
1.32
0.10
11.13
1.63 11.25
1.61
0.07
Far-intermediate Transfer
Snack Delay
0.09
0.61
0.15
0.39
0.12
-0.11
0.69
-0.18
1.02
-0.08
HTKS trials
7.23
7.48
11.69
8.37
0.56
7.50
8.08
6.88
7.43
-0.08
HTKS total
21.69
11.95
29.31
11.45
0.65
23.69
9.52 24.19
9.78
0.05
Whisper Game
28.00
4.36
28.62
5.00
0.13
28.76
4.35 30.00
0.00
0.50
FIST Select 2
8.80
3.66
9.95
3.61
0.32
10.00
3.44 14.38
6.80
0.81
FIST Total
22.35
4.76
23.60
5.05
0.25
23.75
4.84 24.63
5.68
0.17
Tower of Hanoi
3.62
1.53
3.86
1.98
0.14
3.13
1.93
4.19
1.91
0.55
Yes/No
14.29
3.35
14.71
2.47
0.14
15.06
1.44 15.25
1.13
0.15
Note. Italicized text represents tasks that more directly tap attentional control skills. Regular text represents tasks that more directly tap
inhibitory control skills. DCCS = Dimensional Card Change Sort. HTKS = Head-Toes-Knees-Shoulders. FIST = Flexible Item Shift
Task.

64

Table A4
Mixed Repeated Measure ANOVA Results for Behavioral Task Measures
Effect of Time
Time by Group
2
Near Transfer
F
p
F
p
ηp
η2p
Walk-a-line
2.42
0.13
0.06
1.62
0.21
0.04
*
Simon Says
5.42
0.03
0.12
1.68
0.20
0.04
Hand Game
0.10
0.75
0.00
0.30
0.59
0.01
Backward Digit Span
2.18
0.15
0.06
1.50
0.23
0.04
Reverse Categorization
1.29
0.26
0.04
0.41
0.53
0.01
Intermediate Transfer
Bear/Dragon
5.18
0.03*
0.13
1.84
0.18
0.05
Knock-Tap
1.30
0.26
0.04
1.30
0.26
0.04
†
DCCS Border
3.38
0.08
0.09
0.45
0.51
0.01
DCCS Total
8.27
.007***
0.18
0.21
0.65
0.01
Day/Night
7.05
0.01**
0.17
5.45
0.03*
0.14
Shape Stroop
0.13
0.72
0.00
0.00
0.98
0.00
Far-intermediate Transfer
Snack Delay
0.01
0.93
0.00
0.19
0.66
0.01
HTKS trials
2.74
0.11
0.06
4.81
0.03*
0.11
HTKS total
7.02
0.01**
0.15
5.40
0.03*
0.12
Whisper Game
0.42
0.52
0.01
0.12
0.73
0.00
FIST Select 2
9.53
.000***
0.22
3.25
0.08†
0.09
FIST Total
0.97
0.33
0.03
0.03
0.86
0.00
Tower of Hanoi
3.61
0.07†
0.09
1.45
0.24
0.04
Yes/No
0.36
0.55
0.01
0.06
0.82
0.00
***
**
*
†
Note. p < .001. p < 0.01. p < 0.05. p < 0.10. Italicized text represents tasks that more
directly tap attentional control skills. Regular text represents tasks that more directly tap
inhibitory control skills. DCCS = Dimensional Card Change Sort. HTKS = Head-ToesKnees-Shoulders. FIST = Flexible Item Shift Task.

65

Table A5
Descriptive Statistics of Behavioral Performance on Go/No-Go and Flanker Tasks in Training and Control Groups from Baseline
to Post-Assessment
Training Baseline
Training Post
Effect Size Control Baseline
Control Post
Effect Size
Go/No-Go Task
M
SD
M
SD
d
M
SD
M
SD
d
Error No-Go trials
23.73
8.21
22.81
10.84
-0.10
26.48
9.15
25.24
10.43
-0.13
Correct Go trials
167.62
38.14 167.46
37.39
0.00
174.05
31.74
172.95
43.71
-0.03
Total accuracy (%)
85.01
7.78
84.46
7.33
-0.07
84.03
6.09
82.69
9.58
-0.17
RT error (ms)
507.93
83.87 505.43
80.54
-0.03
523.81
75.86
522.30
90.16
-0.02
RT correct (ms)
622.92
71.51 603.86
80.27
-0.25
602.02
56.60
583.44
80.06
-0.27
Post-error accuracy (%)
78.14
15.26
80.23
11.86
0.15
82.20
12.81
80.77
13.57
-0.11
RT post error (ms)
549.93
70.64 522.16
57.78
-0.43
540.64
57.98
509.70
67.85
-0.49
RT post correct (ms)
540.86
42.96 522.69
45.30
-0.41
528.23
40.44
509.67
37.61
-0.48
Flanker Task
Error trials
36.20
17.67
23.84
13.46
-0.79
39.80
22.56
28.25
23.52
-0.50
Correct trials
96.28
42.09 118.48
57.87
0.44
87.75
41.36
112.55
56.76
0.50
Total accuracy (%)
63.71
17.01
73.47
14.79
0.61
60.23
17.95
68.37
18.88
0.44
RT error (ms)
621.98
92.13 614.36
83.20
-0.09
635.26
79.70
623.36
108.71
-0.12
RT correct (ms)
701.91
63.96 705.73
66.77
0.06
691.51
72.94
669.65
88.92
-0.27
Post-error accuracy (%)
61.92
12.26
75.59
15.71
0.97
58.92
12.40
74.94
15.19
1.16
RT post error (ms)
554.67
44.41 574.06
48.30
0.42
547.03
60.50
546.89
67.15
0.00
RT post correct (ms)
572.67
38.98 589.90
32.60
0.48
564.10
40.21
567.63
60.73
0.07
Note. RT = reaction time. Post error trials were defined as trials that were identified as errors (either a false alarm on the Go/No-Go
task or error on the Flanker trial) followed by a correct response. The reaction time on post error trials was measured after the error
itself. Post correct trials were defined as trials that were identified as correct responses followed by another correct response. The
reaction time on post correct trials was measured after the first correct response.

66

Table A6
Mixed Repeated Measure ANOVA results for Behavioral Performance on Go/No-Go
and Flanker Tasks
Effect of Time
Time by Group
2
Go/No-Go Task
F
p
F
p
ηp
η2p
Error No-Go trials
0.63
0.43
0.01
0.01
0.91
0.00
Correct Go trials
0.02
0.89
0.00
0.01
0.91
0.00
Total accuracy (%)
0.95
0.34
0.02
0.16
0.69
0.00
RT error (ms)
0.04
0.84
0.00
0.00
0.96
0.00
RT correct (ms)
4.73
0.04*
0.10
0.00
0.98
0.00
Post error accuracy (%)
0.03
0.87
0.00
0.73
0.40
0.02
RT post error (ms)
8.88 .005***
0.17
0.10
0.94
0.00
RT post correct (ms)
9.79 .003***
0.18
0.00
0.97
0.00
Flanker Task
Error trials
38.84 .000***
0.46
0.01
0.94
0.00
***
Correct trials
22.90 .000
0.34
0.06
0.81
0.00
Total accuracy (%)
27.86 .000***
0.38
0.36
0.55
0.01
RT error (ms)
0.31
0.58
0.01
0.12
0.73
0.00
RT correct (ms)
0.09
0.77
0.00
2.17
0.15
0.05
Post error accuracy (%)
55.64 .000***
0.55
0.34
0.57
0.01
RT post error (ms)
1.99
0.17
0.04
0.96
0.33
0.02
RT post correct (ms)
3.89
0.06†
0.08
1.50
0.23
0.03
Note. ***p < .001. **p < 0.01. *p < 0.05. †p < 0.10. RT = reaction time.

67

Table A7
Descriptive Statistics of Response-Locked and Stimulus-Locked Event-Related Potentials on Go/No-Go and Flanker Tasks in
Training and Control Groups from Baseline to Post-Assessment
Training Baseline
Training Post
Effect Size Control Baseline
Control Post
Effect Size
Go/No-Go
M
SD
M
SD
d
M
SD
M
SD
d
ERN
-1.74
5.04
-3.41
5.55
-0.32
-2.93
6.85
-2.64
5.00
0.05
∆ERN
-1.62
3.71
-2.50
4.19
-0.22
-0.90
3.90
-1.14
7.81
-0.04
High Conflict N2
-19.31
5.12 -21.80
6.86
-0.41
-22.11
6.73
-23.07
6.57
-0.14
∆N2
0.74
3.41
-3.02
4.92
-0.89
-0.28
3.50
-2.08
4.96
-0.42
Fish Flanker
ERN
-1.23
3.67
-1.93
4.08
-0.18
-0.27
2.95
-1.82
2.76
-0.54
∆ERN
-1.90
3.37
-2.62
4.30
-0.19
-0.87
3.60
-2.20
3.42
-0.38
High Conflict N2
-0.09
3.92
-0.72
3.13
-0.18
-3.42
2.82
-0.64
3.62
0.86
∆N2
-0.62
2.97
-0.75
2.13
-0.05
-1.27
4.55
-0.09
2.99
0.31
Note. All mean ERP amplitudes are reported at FCz. ERN = Error-related Negativity. ∆ERN = ERN Difference (ERN – Correct
Related Negativity). ∆N2 = N2 Difference (High Conflict N2 – Low Conflict N2).

68

Table A8
Mixed Repeated Measure ANOVA Results for Event-Related Potentials Elicited
by Go/No-Go and Flanker Tasks
Effect of Time
Time by Group
2
Go No-Go Task
F
p
F
p
ηp
η2p
ERN
0.42
0.52
0.01
0.94
0.34
0.02
∆ERN
0.25
0.62
0.01
0.49
0.49
0.01
*
High Conflict N2
5.61
0.02
0.12
0.32
0.57
0.01
∆N2
14.45
0.00***
0.26
1.42
0.24
0.03
Fish Flanker Task
ERN
1.90
0.18
0.05
0.38
0.54
0.01
∆ERN
1.71
0.20
0.04
0.16
0.70
0.00
High Conflict N2
4.16
0.05*
0.10
5.69
0.02*
0.13
∆N2
0.67
0.42
0.02
0.46
0.02
0.56
***
**
*
†
Note. p < .001. p < 0.01. p < 0.05. p < 0.10. ERN = Error-related Negativity.
∆ERN = ERN Difference (ERN – Correct Related Negativity). ∆N2 = N2
Difference (High Conflict N2 – Low Conflict N2).

69

Table A9
Descriptive Statistics of Parent-Reported Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function and Child Behavior Checklist Raw Scores
in Training and Control Groups from Baseline to 1-Month Follow-Up
Training Baseline Training 1-month Effect Size Control Baseline Control 1-month
Effect Size
BRIEF
M
SD
M
SD
d
M
SD
M
SD
d
Inhibit
29.52
5.95
22.57
3.92
-1.38
26.24
5.31
23.27
6.80
-0.49
Shift
16.38
3.85
13.71
2.80
-0.79
16.29
3.44
14.07
3.95
-0.60
Emotional Control
19.24
3.99
14.67
2.67
-1.35
18.53
3.56
16.73
5.55
-0.39
Working Memory
18.19
3.86
14.43
2.87
-1.11
17.65
3.62
15.20
4.04
-0.64
Plan/Organize
18.10
2.64
14.67
2.29
-1.39
17.82
2.90
14.93
2.96
-0.99
Total GEC
101.43
14.54
80.05
10.13
-1.71
96.53
12.51
84.20
18.93
-0.77
CBCL
Anxious/Depressed
0.46
0.39
0.22
0.22
-0.76
0.37
0.27
0.31
0.27
-0.22
Withdrawn/Depressed
0.22
0.19
0.11
0.12
-0.69
0.25
0.24
0.16
0.19
-0.42
Somatic Problems
0.19
0.20
0.07
0.09
-0.77
0.16
0.23
0.10
0.14
-0.32
Social Problems
0.35
0.27
0.18
0.14
-0.79
0.31
0.22
0.28
0.25
-0.13
Attention Problems
0.54
0.35
0.32
0.27
-0.70
0.47
0.27
0.36
0.32
-0.37
Rule-Breaking
0.23
0.13
0.14
0.13
-0.69
0.21
0.17
0.19
0.24
-0.10
Aggressive Behaviors
0.42
0.30
0.24
0.18
-0.73
0.40
0.31
0.33
0.33
-0.22
Internalizing Scale
0.29
0.23
0.13
0.12
-0.87
0.26
0.20
0.19
0.16
-0.39
Externalizing Scale
0.32
0.20
0.19
0.14
-0.75
0.30
0.23
0.26
0.28
-0.16
Note. BRIEF = Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function, Preschool Version. GEC = Global Executive Composite. CBCL =
Child Behavior Checklist. Internalizing Scale = Sum score of Anxious/Depressed, Withdrawn/Depressed, and Somatic Problems.
Externalizing Scale = Sum score of Rule-Breaking and Aggressive Behaviors.

70

Table A10
Mixed Repeated Measure ANOVA Results for Parent-Reported Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function and Child
Behavior Checklist
Baseline to 1-month
1-month to 3-month
Effect of Time
Time by Group
Effect of Time
Time by Group
2
2
2
F
p
F
p
F
p
BRIEF
F
p
ηp
ηp
ηp
η2p
***
**
Inhibit
35.19 .000
0.51
7.64 0.01
0.18
0.01
0.92
0.00
0.28
0.60 0.01
***
Shift
22.29 .000
0.40
0.46
0.51
0.01
0.40
0.53
0.01
0.40
0.53 0.01
Emotional Control
18.86 .000*** 0.36
2.89 0.10† 0.08
0.50
0.49
0.02
0.02
0.89 0.00
Working Memory
27.28 .000*** 0.45
1.50
0.23
0.04
2.90
0.10†
0.09
0.47
0.50 0.02
***
Plan/Organize
39.71 .000
0.54
0.32
0.58
0.01
1.97
0.17
0.06
0.52
0.48 0.02
***
†
GEC
44.45 .000
0.57
3.77 0.06
0.10
0.35
0.56
0.01
0.18
0.67 0.01
CBCL
Anxious/Depressed
10.09 .003*** 0.20
3.53 0.07† 0.08
3.05
0.09†
0.09
0.08
0.78 0.00
Withdrawn/Depressed
11.78 .001*** 0.22
0.60
0.44
0.01
4.54
0.04*
0.13
0.90
0.35 0.03
Somatic Problems
10.19 .003*** 0.20
0.52
0.48
0.01
1.18
0.29
0.04
0.61
0.44 0.02
***
†
**
Social Problems
8.88 .005
0.18
3.66 0.06
0.08
8.56
0.01
0.22
0.54
0.47 0.02
Attention Problems
25.41 .000*** 0.38
3.77 0.06† 0.08
0.54
0.47
0.02
0.06
0.82 0.00
Rule Breaking
7.38
0.01** 0.15
1.87
0.18
0.04
0.10
0.76
0.00
1.13
0.30 0.04
***
Aggressive
18.16 .000
0.31
1.82
0.18
0.04
0.05
0.83
0.00
0.09
0.77 0.00
Internalizing Scale
17.96 .000*** 0.31
2.74
0.11
0.06
4.14
0.05*
0.12
0.01
0.92 0.00
Externalizing Scale
17.18 .000*** 0.30
2.38
0.13
0.06
0.13
0.72
0.00
0.13
0.72 0.00
Note. ***p < .001. **p < 0.01. *p < 0.05. †p < 0.10. BRIEF = Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function, Preschool Version.
GEC = Global Executive Composite. CBCL = Child Behavior Checklist. Internalizing Scale = Sum score of Anxious/Depressed,
Withdrawn/Depressed, and Somatic Problems. Externalizing Scale = Sum score of Rule-Breaking and Aggressive Behaviors.

71

Table A11
Descriptive Statistics of Teacher-Reported Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive
Function and Child Behavior Checklist Raw Scores at 3-Month Follow-up
Training 3-month
Control 3-month
Effect Size
BRIEF
M
SD
M
SD
d
Inhibit
20.47
7.79
19.90
4.23
-0.09
Shift
11.76
2.59
13.10
4.09
0.39
Emotional Control
13.00
4.66
13.30
4.32
0.07
Working Memory
13.00
3.43
13.70
2.21
0.24
Plan/Organize
12.53
3.92
12.30
1.64
-0.08
Total
70.76
20.50
72.30
11.25
0.09
CBCL
Anxious/Depressed
0.20
0.29
0.20
0.25
0.00
Withdrawn/Depressed
0.15
0.26
0.27
0.21
0.51
Somatic Problems
0.02
0.05
0.06
0.09
0.55
Social Problems
0.13
0.23
0.13
0.19
0.00
Attention Problems
0.35
0.42
0.29
0.37
-0.15
Rule Breaking
0.06
0.11
0.04
0.09
-0.20
Aggressive
0.14
0.18
0.05
0.07
-0.66
Internalizing Scale
0.12
0.16
0.18
0.13
0.41
Externalizing Scale
0.10
0.13
0.05
0.05
-0.51
Note. BRIEF = Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function, Preschool Version.
GEC = Global Executive Composite. CBCL = Child Behavior Checklist. Internalizing
Scale = Sum score of Anxious/Depressed, Withdrawn/Depressed, and Somatic Problems.
Externalizing Scale = Sum score of Rule-Breaking and Aggressive Behaviors.

72

Table A12
Bivariate Correlations Between Changes in Neurophysiological Measures of EC and Changes in
Behavioral Measures of Attentional Control from Baseline to Post-Assessment
Go/No-Go
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1. ERN
-0.96**
-2. ∆ERN
3. HC N2
0.16
0.11
-0.11
0.07 0.85**
-4. ∆N2
Fish Flanker
5. ERN
0.14
0.13
0.09 0.16
-0.13
0.10
0.19 0.22 0.91**
-6. ∆ERN
7. HC N2
0.01
-0.01
0.22 0.18 0.01
0.06
-0.19
0.72**
-0.16
-0.17
0.03 0.07 0.19
-8. ∆N2
9. Backward Digit Span
0.06
0.04
0.17 0.19 -0.14
-0.04
-0.11 -0.09
10. Reverse Categorization
0.07
0.06
0.23 0.13 -0.21
-0.10
0.03 -0.03
*
†
11. DCCS Border
0.22
0.19
0.05 0.05 0.35
0.31
0.05
0.12
12. DCCS Total
0.16
0.16
0.22 0.17 0.25
0.20
0.20 0.35*
13. Day/Night
-0.19
-0.20 -0.05 -0.05 0.28
0.25
-0.03
0.09
14. Shape Stroop
0.04
0.00
0.03 -0.07 0.01
0.13
0.03 -0.15
15. FIST Select 2
-0.02
-0.06 -0.10 -0.19 -0.08
-0.19
0.15
0.16
*
†
16. FIST Total
-0.35
-0.30
-0.07 -0.07 0.06
0.02
0.06
0.08
17. Tower of Hanoi
0.15
0.11
0.27 0.05 -0.10
-0.23
0.22 0.32†
18. Yes/No
-0.06
-0.14
0.16 0.15 0.30†
0.26
0.17
0.10
***
**
*
†
Note. p < .001. p < 0.01. p < 0.05. p < 0.10. Text styles of behavioral tasks denote type of
transfer level. Regular text represents near transfer tasks. Italicized text represents intermediate
transfer tasks. Bolded text represents far-intermediate transfer tasks. DCCS = Dimensional Card
Change Sort. FIST = Flexible Item Shift Task.

73

Table A13
Bivariate Correlations Between Changes in Neurophysiological Measures of EC and Changes in
Behavioral Measures of Inhibitory Control from Baseline to Post-Assessment
Go/No-Go
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1. ERN
-0.96**
-2. ∆ERN
3. HC N2
0.16
0.11
-0.11
0.07 0.85**
-4. ∆N2
Fish Flanker
5. ERN
0.14
0.13
0.09
0.16
-**
0.13
0.10
0.19
0.22
0.91
-6. ∆ERN
7. HC N2
0.01
-0.01
0.22
0.18
0.01
0.06
--0.16
-0.17
0.03
0.07
0.19
0.72**
-0.19
8. ∆N2
9. Walk-a-line
-0.02
0.04
-0.14
-0.07
0.11
0.03
-0.02
0.03
10. Simon Says
-0.11
-0.03
-0.10
-0.17 -0.18
-0.19
-0.10
0.03
11. Hand Game
0.28
0.17
-0.01
-0.10
0.00
0.14
0.02
-0.05
12. Bear Dragon
0.19
0.21
-0.05
0.04
0.12
0.10
-0.16
-0.21
13. Knock-Tap
-0.18
-0.17
0.06
0.18
0.08
-0.08
-0.26
-0.03
14. Snack Delay
-0.15
-0.15
-0.12
-0.05
0.06
0.02
-0.09
-0.19
15. HTKS trials
0.26
0.28†
0.12
-0.03
0.01
0.08
0.05
0.29†
16. HTKS total
0.25
0.24
0.02
-0.16
0.01
0.04
-0.07
0.13
17. Whisper Game
0.05
0.10
0.11
0.06 -0.06
0.00
-0.13
0.00
Note. ***p < .001. **p < 0.01. *p < 0.05. †p < 0.10. Text styles of behavioral tasks denote type of
transfer level. Regular text represents near transfer tasks. Italicized text represents intermediate
transfer tasks. Bolded text represents far-intermediate transfer tasks. HTKS = Head-Toes-KneesShoulders task.

74

Table A14
Bivariate Correlations Between Changes in Neurophysiological Measures of EC and Changes in ParentReported Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function Scores
Go/No-Go
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1. ERN
-0.96**
-2. ∆ERN
3. HC N2
0.16
0.11
-0.11
0.07 0.85**
-4. ∆N2
Fish Flanker
5. ERN
0.14
0.13
0.09
0.16
-**
0.13
0.10
0.19
0.22
0.91
-6. ∆ERN
7. HC N2
0.01 -0.01
0.22
0.18
0.01
0.06
--0.16 -0.17
0.03
0.07
0.19 0.72**
-0.19
8. ∆N2
9. BRIEF Inhibit
-0.21 -0.17 -0.02
0.06
-0.18
-0.18 -0.28
-0.17
10. BRIEF Shift
-0.03
0.04 -0.05
0.03
0.20
0.19 -0.05
0.02
11. BRIEF Emotional Control
-0.00 -0.01
0.15
0.25
0.04
-0.03 -0.13
-0.04
12. BRIEF Working Memory
-0.14 -0.06 -0.21 -0.22
-0.21
-0.21 -0.04
-0.05
13. BRIEF Plan/Organize
-0.25 -0.23 -0.13
0.02
0.02
0.04 -0.16
-0.06
14. BRIEF Total GEC
-0.15 -0.12 -0.05
0.05
-0.03
-0.08 -0.19
-0.09
Note. ***p < .001. **p < 0.01. *p < 0.05. †p < 0.10. BRIEF = Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive
Function, Preschool Version. GEC = Global Executive Composite. BRIEF change scores were
calculated from baseline to 1-month follow-up.

75

Table A15
Bivariate Correlations Between Changes in Neurophysiological Measures of EC and Changes in
Parent-Reported Child Behavior Checklist Scores
Go/No-Go
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1. ERN
-0.96**
-2. ∆ERN
3. HC N2
0.16
0.11
-0.11
0.07 0.85**
-4. ∆N2
Fish Flanker
5. ERN
0.14
0.13
0.09
0.16
-**
0.13
0.10
0.19
0.22
0.91
-6. ∆ERN
7. HC N2
0.01
-0.01
0.22
0.18
0.01
0.06
--0.16
-0.17
0.03
0.07
0.19
0.72**
-0.19
8. ∆N2
9. CBCL AnxDep
-0.03
0.02
-0.04 -0.05 -0.05
-0.07
-0.08
-0.01
10. CBCL WithDep
0.02
0.02
0.05 -0.03
0.19
0.16
0.06
-0.14
11. CBCL Somatic
-0.08
-0.13
0.10
0.02
0.02
-0.08
0.15
0.24
12. CBCL Soc
0.27†
0.22
0.32*
0.21
-0.07
-0.07
0.07
0.01
13. CBCL Attn
-0.07
-0.07
0.11
0.17
-0.02
-0.08
-0.10
-0.10
14. CBCL Ruleb
0.27†
0.29†
0.13
0.19
-0.04
0.00
-0.09
-0.29†
15. CBCL Agg
-0.04
-0.03
0.14
0.14
-0.15
-0.19
-0.15
-0.02
16. CBCL Int
-0.05
-0.03
0.02 -0.03
0.04
-0.02
0.03
0.03
17. CBCL Ext
0.09
0.11
0.15
0.18
-0.12
-0.13
-0.14
-0.15
Note. ***p < .001. **p < 0.01. *p < 0.05. †p < 0.10. CBCL = Child Behavior Checklist. AnxDep =
Anxious/Depressed. WithDep = Withdrawn/Depressed. Somatic = Somatic Problems. Soc =
Social Problems. Attn = Attention Problems. Ruleb = Rule-breaking Behaviors. Agg =
Aggressive Behaviors. Int = Internalizing Scale. Ext = Externalizing Scale. CBCL change scores
were calculated from baseline to 1-month follow-up.

76

Table A16
Bivariate Correlations Between Changes in Behavioral Measures of Attentional Control and Changes in Measures of Inhibitory Control
from Baseline to Post-Assessment
1. BDS
2. RC
3. DCCS Border
4. DCCS Total
5. Day/Night
6. Shape Stroop
7. FIST Select 2
8. FIST Total
9. Tower of Hanoi
10. Yes/No
11. Walk-a-line
12. Simon Says
13. Hand Game
14. Bear Dragon
15. Knock-Tap
16. Snack Delay*
17. HTKS trials
18. HTKS total
19. Whisper Game

1
-0.12
-0.29†
-0.28†
0.02
0.15
-0.03
-0.03
-0.09
-0.06
-0.07
0.30†
-0.17
-0.14
-0.07
-0.03
0.04
0.00
0.11

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

--0.23
-0.14
0.01
-0.02
-0.02
0.10
0.32†
-0.02
-0.22
0.09
0.10
-0.02
-0.05
-0.09
0.09
0.13
0.33†

-0.89**
0.09
-0.32†
0.14
-0.20
-0.06
-0.01
-0.11
-0.16
0.36*
0.24
-0.02
-0.28
0.26
0.30†
-0.29

-0.07
-0.23
0.16
0.07
0.03
-0.03
-0.11
-0.13
0.24
0.26
0.34*
-0.32†
0.30†
0.32*
0.09

-0.29†
-0.22
0.16
-0.20
0.36*
0.11
0.07
0.00
-0.15
0.21
0.14
-0.12
0.09
0.25

--0.32†
0.14
-0.20
0.32†
0.13
-0.04
-0.01
0.06
-0.32†
0.42*
-0.10
0.06
-0.16

-0.24
0.15
-0.11
-0.02
0.02
-0.04
0.01
0.14
-0.28†
0.00
0.11
0.19

--0.12
-0.11
-0.04
0.08
-0.34*
-0.15
0.20
0.04
-0.26
0.01
0.12

-0.06
0.01
0.01
0.20
-0.32*
0.09
-0.16
0.28†
0.18
0.26

-0.22
-0.12
0.03
-0.05
-0.04
0.12
0.20
0.15
-0.04

--0.28†
-0.18
0.03
-0.18
0.09
0.17
0.03
0.10

--0.16
-0.31†
0.05
-0.06
0.15
0.27†
0.19

-0.02
0.10
-0.01
0.31†
0.23
0.00

-0.08
0.04
0.15
0.16
-0.13

--0.10
-0.02
0.21
-0.20

--0.39*
-0.33*
0.19

-0.72**
0.02

-0.22

Note. ***p < .001. **p < 0.01. *p < 0.05. †p < 0.10. First 10 tasks listed are behavioral tasks designed to elicit attentional control skills.
Variables 11-19 represent behavioral tasks designed to elicit inhibitory control skills. Text styles of behavioral tasks denote type of
transfer level. Regular text represents near transfer tasks. Italicized text represents intermediate transfer tasks. Bolded text represents farintermediate transfer tasks. *Snack delay scores are reverse coded so that higher scores mean better effortful control skills. BDS =
Backward Digit Span. RC = Reverse Categorization. DCCS = Dimensional Card Change Sort. FIST = Flexible Item Selection Task.
HTKS = Head-Toes-Knees-Shoulders task.

77

Table A17
Bivariate Correlations Between Changes in Parent-Reported Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Functions and Child Behavior
Checklist Scores from Baseline to 1-Month Follow-Up
1. BRIEF Inhibit
2. BRIEF Shift
3. BRIEF EmoC
4. BRIEF WM
5. BRIEF PlanO
6. BRIEF GEC
7. CBCL AnxDep
8. CBCL WithDep
9. CBCL Somatic
10. CBCL Soc
11. CBCL Attn
12. CBCL Ruleb
13. CBCL Agg
14. CBCL Int
15. CBCL Ext

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

-0.42*
0.66**
0.68**
0.56**
0.88**
0.28
0.10
0.09
0.25
0.44**
0.22
0.44**
0.23
0.40**

-0.69**
0.42*
0.33*
0.70**
0.06
0.18
0.03
0.13
0.08
0.10
0.04
0.10
0.07

-0.43**
0.37*
0.82**
0.13
0.06
0.28†
0.28†
0.20
0.16
0.26
0.20
0.25

-0.74**
0.81**
0.21
0.06
0.03
0.08
0.26
0.17
0.18
0.16
0.20

-0.73**
0.25
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.24
0.08
0.02
0.15
0.05

-0.24
0.10
0.13
0.22
0.33*
0.19
0.28†
0.22
0.28†

-0.60**
0.27†
0.47**
0.47**
0.34*
0.37*
0.90**
0.40**

-0.18
0.51**
0.36*
0.46*
0.38*
0.76**
0.46**

-0.24
0.22
-0.11
0.29†
0.58**
0.15

-0.60**
0.58**
0.61**
0.54**
0.67**

-0.46**
0.56**
0.48**
0.59**

-0.55**
0.32*
0.82**

-0.45**
0.93**

-0.45**

Note. ***p < .001. **p < 0.01. *p < 0.05. †p < 0.10. BRIEF = Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Functions. EmoC = Emotional
Control. WM = Working Memory. PlanO = Plan/Organize. GEC = Global Executive Composite. CBCL = Child Behavior
Checklist. AnxDep = Anxious/Depressed. WithDep = Withdrawn/Depressed. Somatic = Somatic Problems. Soc = Social
Problems. Attn = Attention Problems. Ruleb = Rule-breaking Behaviors. Agg = Aggressive Behaviors. Int = Internalizing Scale.
Ext = Externalizing Scale.

78

Table A18
Bivariate Correlations Between Changes in Behavioral Measures of Attentional Control and
Changes in Parent-Reported Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Functions and Child
Behavior Checklist Scores
1. BRIEF Inhibit
2. BRIEF Shift
3. BRIEF EmoC
4. BRIEF WM
5. BRIEF PlanO
6. BRIEF GEC
7. CBCL AnxDep
8. CBCL WithDep
9. CBCL Somatic
10. CBCL Soc
11. CBCL Attn
12. CBCL Ruleb
13. CBCL Agg
14. CBCL Int
15. CBCL Ext
16. BDS
17. RC
18. DCCS Border
19. DCCS Total
20. Day/Night
21. Shape Stroop
22. FIST Select 2
23. FIST Total
24. Tower of Hanoi
25. Yes/No

16
0.07
0.00
0.08
0.11
0.08
0.09
0.17
0.30†
-0.02
0.17
0.06
0.32†
0.24
0.19
0.31
-----------

17
-0.15
0.05
-0.05
0.10
-0.06
-0.04
-0.03
0.12
-0.25
0.04
-0.05
0.12
-0.19
-0.07
-0.07
-----------

18
-0.13
0.01
0.03
-0.06
0.02
-0.05
-0.15
-0.18
-0.01
0.13
-0.06
-0.26
-0.04
-0.15
-0.14
-----------

19
0.02
0.25
0.27
0.13
0.10
0.18
-0.19
-0.28
-0.01
0.10
-0.01
-0.14
0.00
-0.21
-0.06
-----------

20
-0.22
-0.03
-0.06
-0.09
-0.03
-0.13
-0.08
-0.15
0.15
-0.24
-0.11
-0.41*
-0.36*
-0.04
-0.43*
-----------

21
0.15
-0.04
0.14
0.10
-0.08
0.08
-0.14
-0.16
-0.12
-0.11
0.14
-0.23
0.08
-0.18
-0.06
-----------

22
0.15
0.10
-0.01
0.13
0.11
0.25
-0.12
-0.11
-0.24
-0.17
0.13
0.01
0.07
-0.20
0.05
-----------

23
0.33†
0.42*
0.24
0.48**
0.27
0.44**
-0.10
-0.05
-0.24
-0.04
0.22
0.07
0.13
-0.17
0.12
-----------

24
-0.10
-0.06
-0.11
-0.12
-0.29†
-0.16
-0.07
0.02
0.15
0.24
-0.20
0.02
0.22
0.02
0.15
-----------

25
-0.15
0.10
0.22
-0.13
-0.07
-0.07
0.15
-0.13
0.15
-0.14
-0.20
-0.23
-0.11
0.11
-0.18
-----------

Note. ***p < .001. **p < 0.01. *p < 0.05. †p < 0.10. Bivariate correlations between changes in
behavioral measures of attentional control skills are presented in Table A16, and therefore not
listed in the present table. Text styles of behavioral tasks denote type of transfer level. Regular text
represents near transfer tasks. Italicized text represents intermediate transfer tasks. Bolded text
represents far-intermediate transfer tasks. BRIEF = Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive
Functions. EmoC = Emotional Control. WM = Working Memory. PlanO = Plan/Organize. GEC
= Global Executive Composite. CBCL = Child Behavior Checklist. AnxDep =
Anxious/Depressed. WithDep = Withdrawn/Depressed. Somatic = Somatic Problems. Soc =
Social Problems. Attn = Attention Problems. Ruleb = Rule-breaking Behaviors. Agg = Aggressive
Behaviors. Int = Internalizing Scale. Ext = Externalizing Scale. BDS = Backward Digit Span. RC =
Reverse Categorization. DCCS = Dimensional Card Change Sort. FIST = Flexible Item Selection
Task.

79

Table A19
Bivariate Correlations Between Changes in Behavioral Measures of Inhibitory Control and
Changes in Parent-Reported Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Functions and Child
Behavior Checklist Scores
1. BRIEF Inhibit
2. BRIEF Shift
3. BRIEF EmoC
4. BRIEF WM
5. BRIEF PlanO
6. BRIEF GEC
7. CBCL AnxDep
8. CBCL WithDep
9. CBCL Somatic
10. CBCL Soc
11. CBCL Attn
12. CBCL Ruleb
13. CBCL Agg
14. CBCL Int
15. CBCL Ext
16. Walk-a-line
17. Simon Says
18. Hand Game
19. Bear Dragon
20. Knock-Tap
21. Snack Delay*
22. HTKS trials
23. HTKS total
24. Whisper Game

16
-0.35*
-0.08
-0.31†
-0.27
-0.28
-0.34*
0.11
0.00
-0.03
-0.38*
-0.40*
-0.32†
-0.32*
0.05
-0.37*
----------

17
0.11
-0.02
-0.08
0.17
-0.04
0.04
0.16
0.28†
-0.10
0.18
0.12
0.23
0.43**
0.15
0.39*
----------

18
-0.26
-0.44**
-0.27
-0.31†
-0.21
-0.36*
-0.23
-0.16
0.12
0.07
-0.26
-0.09
-0.12
-0.14
-0.12
----------

19
-0.08
-0.05
0.12
-0.02
-0.09
-0.02
-0.20
-0.17
-0.12
-0.27
-0.05
-0.05
-0.10
-0.22
-0.09
----------

20
0.17
0.09
0.18
0.14
0.19
0.20
-0.07
-0.19
-0.02
-0.24
-0.01
-0.13
-0.01
-0.11
-0.07
----------

21
-0.05
-0.21
-0.22
0.10
0.04
-0.09
0.11
0.04
0.18
-0.06
0.17
0.15
-0.03
0.14
0.05
----------

22
-0.28†
-0.17
-0.19
-0.19
-0.25
-0.27†
-0.05
-0.13
-0.04
-0.01
-0.31†
-0.08
0.16
-0.08
0.07
----------

23
-0.01
-0.07
0.07
0.00
-0.21
-0.04
0.07
0.00
0.04
0.15
-0.07
-0.06
0.26
0.05
0.15
----------

24
0.29†
0.00
0.21
0.26
0.11
0.24
0.21
0.19
-0.01
0.20
0.31†
0.20
0.23
0.18
0.25
----------

Note. ***p < .001. **p < 0.01. *p < 0.05. †p < 0.10. Bivariate correlations between changes in
behavioral measures of inhibitory control skills are presented in Table A16, and therefore not
listed in the present table. Text styles of behavioral tasks denote type of transfer level. Regular
text represents near transfer tasks. Italicized text represents intermediate transfer tasks. Bolded
text represents far-intermediate transfer tasks. BRIEF = Behavior Rating Inventory of
Executive Functions. EmoC = Emotional Control. WM = Working Memory. PlanO =
Plan/Organize. GEC = Global Executive Composite. CBCL = Child Behavior Checklist.
AnxDep = Anxious/Depressed. WithDep = Withdrawn/Depressed. Somatic = Somatic
Problems. Soc = Social Problems. Attn = Attention Problems. Ruleb = Rule-breaking
Behaviors. Agg = Aggressive Behaviors. Int = Internalizing Scale. Ext = Externalizing Scale.
*Snack delay scores are reverse coded so that higher scores mean better effortful control
skills. HTKS = Head-Toes-Knees-Shoulders task.

80

APPENDIX B

FIGURES

81

Figure B1. Top: Treasure map slide on the Flanker task. Bottom: Sample trials of the Flanker task

82

Figure B2. Graphical depiction of mean-level changes in behavioral tasks designed to measure attentional control skills from
baseline to post-assessment in training (green) compared to control group (black). Standard error bars are shown. DCCS =
Dimensional Card Change Sort. FIST = Flexible Item Selection Task.
83

Figure B3. Graphical depiction of mean-level changes in behavioral tasks designed to measure inhibitory control skills from
baseline to post-assessment in training (green) compared to control group (black). Standard error bars are shown. HTKS = HeadToes-Knees-Shoulders Task.
84

Figure B4. Error-related brain activity for Go/No-Go (left) and Flanker (right) tasks in training (green) compared to control (black)
groups at baseline (solid line) and post-assessment (dashed line) time points. Time 0 represents response onset.

85

Figure B5. Stimulus-locked brain activity on high conflict trials for Go/No-Go (left) and Flanker (right) tasks in training (green)
compared to control (black) groups at baseline (solid line) and post-assessment (dashed line) time points. Time 0 represents
stimulus onset.

86

Figure B6. Graphical depiction of mean-level changes in parent-reported Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive
Function (BRIEF) scores across baseline, 1-month follow-up, and 3-month follow-up time points in training (green)
compared to control group (black). Standard error bars are shown.
87

Figure B7. Graphical depiction of mean-level changes in parent-reported Child Behavior
Checklist (CBCL) scores across baseline, 1-month follow-up, and 3-month follow-up time
points in training (green) compared to control group (black). Standard error bars are shown.
88

APPENDIX C

A PRIORI PREDICTIONS AND STUDY RESULTS

89

Table C1
A Priori Predictions and Study Results
Method/Measure
A Priori Prediction1

Main Effect of
Time2

Time By Group Interaction
Effects3

Behavioral
AC Near transfer
↑↑↑
--AC Intermediate transfer
↑↑
↑
↑
AC Far-intermediate
↑
↑
↑†
IC Near transfer
↑↑↑
↑
-IC Intermediate transfer
↑↑
↓
-IC Far-intermediate
↑
↑
↑
Neurophysiological
Go/No-Go bx perf
↑↑
--Go/No-Go ERN
↑
--Go/No-Go N2
↓
↑↑
-Flanker bx perf
↑↑
↑↑
-Flanker ERN
↑
--Flanker N2
↓
↑
↓
Informant-report
Parent BRIEF
↓↓
↓↓↓
↓
Parent CBCL
↓↓
↓↓↓
↓†
Teacher BRIEF
Lower
N/A
-Teacher CBCL
Lower
N/A
-Note. 1A priori predictions are summarized as time by group interaction effects that favor training
groups; control groups were anticipated to demonstrate no significant change across all methods
and measures (e.g., ↑↑↑ on behavioral measures denotes a large effect of increased performance in
training groups whereas control groups exhibit no change). Strength of predicted effect is
indicated by number of arrows, with more arrows representing a larger effect or more consistent
pattern of effects (e.g., ↑ = small effect, ↑↑ = moderate effect, ↑↑↑ = large effect). 2Results
depicted are summarized from mixed ANOVA analyses testing the main effect of time. More
consistent pattern of results are indicated by more arrows. 3Summarized results are from mixed
ANOVA time by group interaction effects (with the exception of teacher-reported results, which
were independent t-test results). Green arrows (↑) denote that effects are specific to the training
group whereas red arrows (↑) denote that effects are specific to the control group. Unless
otherwise noted, listed effects are significant (trend-level effects are denoted by the following
symbol: “†” )

90

APPENDIX D

MEASURES BY TRANSFER TYPE

91

Table D1
Near, Intermediate, Far-intermediate, and Far Transfer Measures Collected
Reference
Cognitive Abilities
PPVT
WPPSI Block Design
WPPSI Matrix Reasoning
Stanford Binet Block Span
Stanford Binet Last-Word
Behavioral
Walk-a-line
Simon Says
Hand Game
Bear/Dragon
Knock-Tap
Snack Delay
HTKS
Whisper Game
Red Light/Purple Light
Freeze Game
Jumping Game
Color Matching Freeze
Drum Beats
Backward Digit Span
Reverse Categorization
DCCS
Day/Night
Shape Stroop
FIST
Tower of Hanoi
Yes/No Task

Overall
Adjustment

Fluid
Reas.

Recep.
Vocab

Working Memory
Verbal

Dunn & Dunn, 2007
Weschler, 2002
Weschler, 2002
Roid, 2005
Roid, 2005
Kochanska, Murray, & Coy
2000
Strommen, 1972
Hughes 1998
Reed et al., 1994
Klenberg et al., 2001
Murray & Kochanska, 2002
Ponitz et al., 2008
Kochanska et al., 1996
Tominey & McClelland, 2011
Tominey & McClelland, 2011
Tominey & McClelland, 2011
Tominey & McClelland, 2011
Tominey & McClelland, 2011
Davis & Pratt, 1996
Carlson, Mandell, & Williams,
2004
Zelazo, 2006
Gerstadt et al., 1994
Kochanska et al., 2000
Jacques & Zelazo, 2001
Welsh et al., 1991
Wolfe & Bell, 2004

92

Vis-Spat.

Inhibitory
Control

Attentional
Control

Table D1 (cont’d)
Neurophsyiological
Go/No-Go
Flanker
Informant-Reported
CBCL
BRIEF-P

Grammer et al., 2014
Lo et al., 2015
Achenbach, 1991
Gioia, Espy, & Isquith, 2002

= near transfer tasks (practiced during training)
= intermediate transfer tasks (alternative form used, or closely related procedure)
= far-intermediate transfer (not practiced during training, but assessed at baseline and post-assessments)
= far transfer (informant-report measures collected at baseline, 1-month, and 3 months or cognitive measures that were
only assessed at baseline)
= only practiced during training

93

APPENDIX E

SAMPLE SCHEDULE OF TRAINING DAY

94

Table E1
Sample Schedule of a Training Day
Schedule
Start @9AM: Group Welcome
9:20AM: Small Group (Group A: n = 3; Group
B: n = 3)
9:35AM: Large Group (Group A & B: n = 6)
9:45AM: Small Group (Group A: n = 3; Group
B: n = 3)
10:00AM: Large Group (Group A & B: n = 6)
10:10AM: Small Group (Group A: n = 3;
Group B: n = 3)
10:25AM: Break
10:45AM: Free Play
11:05AM: Small Group (Group A: n = 3;
Group B: n = 3)
11:20AM: Large Group (Group A & B: n = 6)
11:30AM: Large Group (Group A & B: n = 6)
11:40AM: End Group

95

Activity
Warm up; review schedule; review group
rules
Group A: Hand Game
Group B: Walk-a-Line
Color Matching Freeze
Group A: DCCS
Group B: Grass/Snow Stroop
Drum Beats
Group A: Walk-a-Line
Group B: Hand Game
Snack Time
Free Play
Group A: Grass/Snow Stroop
Group B: DCCS
Red Light/Purple Light
Say Goodbye
Review Marble Jar

APPENDIX F

DESCRIPTION OF TIME-LOCKED AND
STIMULUS-LOCKED EVENT-RELATED POTENTIAL ANALYSES

96

ERN. The location of maximal amplitude for the ERN was evaluated using a 2 (trial type:
error; correct) X 5 (site: Fz; FCz; Cz; CPz; Pz) repeated measures ANOVA model and follow-up
paired sample t-tests. The response-locked waveforms from the Go/No-Go task can be seen in
Figure B4 and descriptive statistics in Tables F1 and F2. Analyses indicated a greater negativity on
error No-Go trials compared to correct Go trials at pre- (F(1, 43) = 52.88, p < .001, η2p = 0.55) and
post-assessment time points (F(1, 43) = 28.00, p < .001 , η2p = 0.39). This effect varied by site X trial
type interaction, indicating a larger error vs. correct difference at frontocentral recording sites at pre(F(4, 172) = 16.63, p < .001, η2p = 0.28) and post-assessment time points (F(4, 172) = 17.71, p <
.001, η2p = 0.29). ERN amplitudes were largest at FCz at post-assessment compared to Cz (t(43) =
3.05, p = .004), CPz (t(43) = 3.70, p = .001), and Pz (t(43) = 3.07, p = .004). Therefore, further
analyses focused on FCz for post-assessments. While the ERN amplitude was numerically largest at
Cz at baseline, it was not statistically different from the ERN at FCz (t(43) = 1.02, p = 0.50).
Therefore, further analyses focused on FCz at baseline for consistency within task and across time
points.
The response-locked waveforms from the Flanker task can be seen in Figure B5. A
significant site X trial type interaction, indicating a larger error vs. correct difference at frontocentral
recording sites was observed at baseline (F(4, 164) = 8.26, p < .001, η2p = 0.17). At post-assessment,
a greater negativity on error trials compared to correct trials was observed (F(1, 39) = 8.42, p = 0.01
, η2p = 0.18); the effect varied by site X trial type interaction with a larger error vs. correct difference
at frontocentral recording sites (F(4, 156) = 4.72, p = .001, η2p = 0.11). At baseline, the ERN was
largest in magnitude at FCz compared to Pz (t(41) = 2.05, p = 0.05); however there were no
significant differences in magnitude between FCz and Fz (t(41) = 1.05, p = 0.30), Cz (t(41) = 1.10, p
= 0.28), or CPz (t(41) = 1.36, p = 0.18). Since the ERN was numerically largest at FCz, further

97

analyses focused on FCz for the baseline time point. At post-assessment, the ERN was significantly
larger in magnitude at FCz compared to Fz (t(39) = 2.60, p = 0.01), CPz (t(39) = 2.82, p = .008), and
Pz (t(39) = 2.22, p = 0.03). Even though the ERN was numerically largest at Cz, there were no
significant differences in magnitude between FCz and Cz (t(39) = 0.25, p = 0.80). Therefore, further
analyses focused on FCz for the post-assessment time point for consistency across and within task
analyses.
N2. The location of maximal amplitude for the N2 was evaluated using a 2 (trial type: high
conflict; low conflict) X 5 (site: Fz; FCz; Cz; CPz; Pz) repeated measures ANOVA model and
follow-up paired sample t-tests. The stimulus-locked waveforms from the Go/No-Go task can be
seen in Figure B5 and descriptive statistics in Tables F1 and F2. At baseline, a main effect of site
(F(4, 176) = 84.37, p < .001, η2p = 0.66) indicated greater negativity at frontocentral recording sites.
However, the effect did not vary by site X trial interaction (F(4, 176) = 1.20, p = 0.31, η2p = 0.03). In
contrast, at post-assessment there was a main effect of site (F(4, 172) = 64.92, p < .001, η2p = 0.60)
and trial type (F(1, 43) = 11.02, p = .002, η2p = 0.20). Further, a significant site X trial type
interaction indicated a larger negativity on No-Go trials compared to Go trials at frontocentral sites
(F(4, 172) = 6.15, p < .001, η2p = 0.13). The N2 amplitude on No-Go trials was largest in magnitude
at FCz at both pre- and post-assessment time points compared to Fz (t(44) = 4.81, p <.001; t(43) =
3.06, p = .004), CPz (t(44) = 5.87, p < .001; t(43) = 5.43, p <.001), and Pz (t(44) = 10.65, p < .001;
t(43) = 10.25, p <.001). At baseline, the N2 amplitude on No-Go trials at FCz was not significantly
different from the amplitude at Cz (t(45) = 0.02, p = 0.99). However, at the post-assessment time
point, the N2 amplitude on No-Go trials at FCz was more negative compared to Cz (t(43) = 2.47, p
= 0.02). Therefore, further analyses focused on FCz for both pre- and post-assessment time points.

98

The stimulus-locked waveforms from the Flanker task can be seen in Figure B5 and
descriptive statistics in Tables F1 and F2. At baseline and post-assessment time points, there was a
main effect of site (F(4, 164) = 42.89, p < .001, η2p = 0.51; F(4, 148) = 28.30, p < .001, η2p = 0.43)
such that frontocentral sites were more negative than posterior sites. At baseline, N2 amplitudes
were also more negative on high conflict trials compared to low conflict trials (F(1, 41) = 4.10, p =
0.05, η2p = 0.09); and at post-assessment this effect approached trend-level significance (F(1, 37) =
3.20, p = 0.08, η2p = 0.08). There was not a significant site X trial interaction at baseline or postassessments (F(4, 164) = 1.20, p = 0.32, η2p = 0.03; F(4, 148) = 1.60, p = 0.18, η2p = 0.04). However,
the N2 amplitude on high conflict trials was significantly more negative at FCz compared to Fz
(t(41) = 2.59), p = 0.01), CPz (t(41) = 3.80, p < .001), and Pz (t(41) = 8.09, p < .001). A trend-level
effect of a more negative N2 amplitude on high conflict trials at FCz compared to Cz was also
observed (t(41) = 1.96, p = 0.06). At post-assessment, a significantly more negative N2 amplitude on
high conflict trials was observed at FCz compared to CPz (t(39) = 2.85, p = .007) and Pz (t(38) =
6.79, p < .001). Since the N2 amplitude on high conflict trials was numerically largest at FCz, further
analyses focused on FCz for both pre- and post-assessment time points.

99

Table F1
Pre-assessment Means (SD) of Time-Locked and Stimulus-Locked Event-Related Potential
Voltage Amplitudes (µV) for Go/No-Go and Flanker Tasks Across Five Midline Sites
Fz
FCz
Cz
CPz
Pz
Go/No-Go
ERN
-1.32 (5.09)
-2.27 (5.87)
-2.61 (5.33)
-1.53 (4.01) -0.82 (4.20)
CRN
3.41 (2.20)
4.00 (2.57)
3.68 (2.83)
2.27 (2.50)
1.09 (2.40)
∆ERN
-4.73 (5.14)
-6.27 (6.02)
-6.29 (5.33)
-3.80 (3.56) -1.90 (4.20)
High Conflict N2
-19.2 (6.23)
-20.5 (5.95)
-20.0 (5.27)
-16.1 (5.60) -9.73 (4.92)
Low Conflict N2
-19.8 (4.76)
-20.8 (4.41)
-20.2 (4.37)
-16.5 (5.22) -10.8 (4.51)
∆N2
0.59 (3.46)
0.31 (3.45)
0.21 (3.02)
0.34 (3.11)
1.08 (2.94)
Fish Flanker
ERN
-0.65 (3.15)
-0.84 (3.39)
-0.52 (3.40)
-0.15 (2.90)
0.26 (2.72)
CRN
0.82 (1.97)
0.64 (2.35)
0.38 (2.54)
0.05 (2.43) -0.45 (2.10)
∆ERN
-1.46 (3.11)
-1.48 (3.46)
-0.90 (3.41)
-0.20 (3.48)
0.70 (3.18)
High Conflict N2
-1.02 (3.39)
-1.52 (3.84)
-1.02 (4.21)
-0.18 (4.07)
2.08 (3.46)
Low Conflict N2
-0.51 (3.68)
-0.62 (4.03)
0.06 (4.54)
1.18 (4.31)
3.31 (4.16)
∆N2
-0.52 (3.45)
-0.90 (3.70)
-1.08 (3.65)
-1.37 (3.45) -1.23 (3.34)
Note. ERN = Error-related Negativity. CRN = Correct-response Negativity, the voltage
amplitude on correct trials identified in the same time window as the ERN. ∆ERN = Difference
between the ERN and CRN.

Table F2
Post-assessment Means (SD) of Time-Locked and Stimulus-Locked Event-Related Potential
Voltage Amplitudes (µV) for Go/No-Go and Flanker Tasks Across Five Midline Sites
Fz
FCz
Cz
CPz
Pz
Go/No-Go
ERN
-2.80 (4.95)
-3.08 (5.27)
-2.00 (5.09)
-0.74 (4.69) -0.80 (4.78)
CRN
2.25 (2.65)
2.79 (2.94)
2.79 (2.89)
1.94 (2.37)
0.83 (2.19)
∆ERN
-5.04 (5.75)
-5.87 (6.24)
-4.79 (5.89)
-2.68 (5.06) -1.63 (5.00)
High Conflict N2
-21.4 (6.91)
-22.3 (6.70)
-21.0 (6.01)
-16.8 (7.01) -11.1 (6.00)
Low Conflict N2
-18.8 (4.91)
-19.7 (4.78)
-18.9 (4.66)
-15.5 (5.57) -10.9 (4.83)
∆N2
-2.58 (5.10)
-2.64 (4.90)
-2.05 (3.83)
-1.21 (3.64) -0.25 (3.47)
Fish Flanker
ERN
-0.99 (3.04)
-1.89 (3.57)
-1.81 (3.93)
-0.55 (3.15) -0.30 (4.51)
CRN
0.78 (1.95)
0.56 (2.38)
0.59 (2.92)
0.59 (2.74)
0.28 (2.70)
∆ERN
-1.77 (3.15)
-2.45 (3.93)
-2.40 (4.55)
-1.14 (4.02) -0.58 (5.09)
High Conflict N2
-0.54 (2.80)
-0.69 (3.29)
-0.29 (3.53)
0.60 (4.03)
2.34 (3.48)
Low Conflict N2
-0.44 (2.79)
-0.20 (2.74)
0.61 (3.41)
1.46 (3.92)
2.96 (3.63)
∆N2
-0.10 (2.73)
-0.48 (2.50)
-0.90 (2.74)
-0.86 (3.44) -0.62 (3.14)
Note. ERN = Error-related Negativity. CRN = Correct-response Negativity, the voltage
amplitude on correct trials identified in the same time window as the ERN. ∆ERN = Difference
between the ERN and CRN.

100

APPENDIX G

CORRELATED CHANGE ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN EVENT-RELATED POTENTIALS
AND BEHAVIORAL PERFORMANCE

101

Table G1
Associations Between Changes in Go/No-Go Event-Related Potentials and Changes in Go/No-Go Behavioral
Performance
Go/No-Go
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1. ERN
-0.96**
-2. ∆ERN
3. HC N2
0.16
0.11
-0.11
0.07
0.85**
-4. ∆N2
†
5. Total accuracy (%)
0.10
0.19
-0.26
-0.22
-6. RT error (ms)
0.30*
0.18
0.27†
0.10
0.05
-7. RT correct (ms)
0.29†
0.29*
0.10
0.11
-0.01
0.22
-**
†
8. Post error accuracy (%)
0.25
0.21
-0.13
-0.09
0.60
0.25
-0.09
-9. RT post error (ms)
0.21
0.26†
0.11
0.08
0.13
0.30*
0.60**
-0.16
-10. RT post correct (ms)
0.27†
0.06
0.04
-0.05
0.30*
0.31*
0.69**
0.04
0.50**
Note. ***p < .001. **p < 0.01. *p < 0.05. †p < 0.10. ERN = Error-related Negativity. CRN = Correct-response Negativity,
the voltage amplitude on correct trials identified in the same time window as the ERN. ∆ERN = Difference between the
ERN and CRN. RT = Reaction Time.

102

Table G2
Associations Between Changes in Flanker Event-Related Potentials and Changes in Flanker Behavioral
Performance
Flanker
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1. ERN
-0.91**
-2. ∆ERN
3. HC N2
0.01
0.06
-0.19
0.72**
-0.19
4. ∆N2
5. Total accuracy (%)
-0.26 -0.30†
-0.04
-0.05
-*
*
6. RT error (ms)
0.35
0.38
-0.03
0.01 -0.33*
-†
7. RT correct (ms)
0.27
0.18
0.21
0.23
0.02
0.34*
-**
8. Post error accuracy (%)
-0.23 -0.12
0.00
-0.08 0.54
-0.19
-0.21
-9. RT post error (ms)
0.04
0.06
0.01
-0.11
0.03
-0.09
0.45**
0.09
-10. RT post correct (ms)
0.26
0.20
0.02
0.09
0.30*
0.13
0.61**
0.01
0.32*
Note. ***p < .001. **p < 0.01. *p < 0.05. †p < 0.10. ERN = Error-related Negativity. CRN = Correct-response
Negativity, the voltage amplitude on correct trials identified in the same time window as the ERN. ∆ERN =
Difference between the ERN and CRN. RT = Reaction Time.

103

APPENDIX H

SCATTERPLOTS OF SIGNIFICANT AND TREND-LEVEL CORRELATED CHANGE
ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN METHOD

104

Figure H1. Increase in Go/No-Go ERN over time is associated
with greater improvements in total FIST score.

Figure H2. Reduction in Go/No-Go ERN over time is associated
with greater improvements in DCCS border score.

105

Figure H3. Reduction in Flanker ∆N2 over time is associated with
greater improvements in DCCS border score.

Figure H4. Reduction in Go/No-Go ∆ERN over time is associated
with greater improvements in HTKS task.

106

Figure H5. Reduction in Flanker ∆N2 over time is associated
with greater improvements in HTKS task.

Figure H6. Increases in Go/No-Go N2 over time is associated with
fewer parent-reported social problems.

107

Figure H7. Increases in the Go/No-Go ERN over time is
associated with fewer parent-reported problems with rule
breaking.

Figure H8. Increases in the Go/No-Go ERN over time is
associated with fewer parent-reported social problems.

108

Figure H9. Reduction in Flanker ∆N2 is associated with fewer
parent-reported problems with rule breaking.

109

APPENDIX I

BIVARIATE CORRELATIONS BETWEEN METHOD WITHIN TIME POINT

110

Table I1
Baseline Associations Between Go/No-Go Event-Related Potentials and Go/No-Go
Behavioral Performance
Go/No-Go
1. ERN
2. ∆ERN
3. HC N2
4. ∆N2
5. Total accuracy (%)
6. RT error (ms)
7. RT correct (ms)
8. Post error accuracy (%)
9. RT post error (ms)
10. RT post correct (ms)

1

2

3

-0.92**
0.35*
0.44**
-0.16
0.56**
0.43**
0.14
0.50**
0.29†

-0.45**
0.47**
-0.29†
0.62**
0.38*
0.14
0.48**
0.11

-0.66**
-0.35*
0.16
0.19
-0.14
0.16
-0.09

4

--0.16
0.07
0.21
0.00
0.14
0.05

5

6

7

--0.41**
-0.14
0.54**
0.09
0.41**

-0.64**
-0.10
0.63**
0.29†

--0.21
0.59**
0.69**

8

-0.08
0.14

9

-0.57**

Note. ***p < .001. **p < 0.01. *p < 0.05. †p < 0.10. ERN = Error-related Negativity. CRN =
Correct-response Negativity, the voltage amplitude on correct trials identified in the same
time window as the ERN. ∆ERN = Difference between the ERN and CRN. RT = Reaction
Time.

Table I2
Post-Assessment Associations Between Go/No-Go Event-Related Potentials and Go/No-Go
Behavioral Performance
Go/No-Go
1. ERN
2. ∆ERN
3. HC N2
4. ∆N2
5. Total accuracy (%)
6. RT error (ms)
7. RT correct (ms)
8. Post error accuracy (%)
9. RT post error (ms)
10. RT post correct (ms)

1
-0.91**
0.39*
0.33*
-0.33*
0.58**
0.48**
-0.07
0.67**
0.38*

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

-0.40**
0.27†
-0.39*
0.52**
0.36*
-0.07
0.62**
0.22

-0.65**
-0.49**
0.52**
0.13
-0.16
0.49**
0.00

--0.29†
0.42**
0.20
-0.08
0.29
0.10

--0.45**
-0.25
0.69**
-0.26†
0.26†

-0.70**
-0.20
0.70**
0.49**

--0.36*
0.47**
0.78**

-0.06
0.00

-0.47**

Note. ***p < .001. **p < 0.01. *p < 0.05. †p < 0.10. ERN = Error-related Negativity. CRN =
Correct-response Negativity, the voltage amplitude on correct trials identified in the same time
window as the ERN. ∆ERN = Difference between the ERN and CRN. RT = Reaction Time.

111

Table I3
Baseline Associations Between Flanker Event-Related Potentials and Flanker Behavioral
Performance
Flanker
1. ERN
2. ∆ERN
3. HC N2
4. ∆N2
5. Total accuracy (%)
6. RT error (ms)
7. RT correct (ms)
8. Post error accuracy (%)
9. RT post error (ms)
10. RT post correct (ms)

1
-0.75**
0.25
0.19
-0.39*
-0.19
-0.19
-0.55**
-0.17
-0.20

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

-0.22
0.24
-0.39*
0.15
0.10
-0.47**
0.00
-0.07

-0.50**
-0.13
-0.23
-0.28†
-0.18
-0.19
-0.30†

-0.22
-0.13
-0.18
-0.08
0.03
-0.06

--0.16
0.19
0.76**
0.60**
0.54**

-0.61**
-0.01
0.38*
0.43**

-0.17
0.57**
0.78**

-0.48**
0.47**

-0.72**

Note. ***p < .001. **p < 0.01. *p < 0.05. †p < 0.10. ERN = Error-related Negativity. CRN = Correctresponse Negativity, the voltage amplitude on correct trials identified in the same time window as the
ERN. ∆ERN = Difference between the ERN and CRN. RT = Reaction Time.

Table I4
Post-Assessment Associations Between Flanker Event-Related Potentials and Flanker
Behavioral Performance
Flanker
1. ERN
2. ∆ERN
3. HC N2
4. ∆N2
5. Total accuracy (%)
6. RT error (ms)
7. RT correct (ms)
8. Post error accuracy (%)
9. RT post error (ms)
10. RT post correct (ms)

1
-0.80**
-0.02
-0.08
-0.42**
0.20
0.19
-0.32*
-0.25
-0.12

2

3

-0.07
0.10
-0.32*
0.50**
0.37*
-0.11
-0.03
0.12

-0.59**
-0.27
0.00
-0.11
-0.18
-0.20
-0.12

4

--0.13
0.21
0.16
-0.13
0.01
0.23

5

6

7

8

9

--0.14
-0.06
0.79**
0.53**
0.51**

-0.70**
0.03
0.29
0.45**

-0.00
0.42**
0.71**

-0.71**
0.51**

-0.70**

Note. ***p < .001. **p < 0.01. *p < 0.05. †p < 0.10. ERN = Error-related Negativity. CRN =
Correct-response Negativity, the voltage amplitude on correct trials identified in the same
time window as the ERN. ∆ERN = Difference between the ERN and CRN. RT =
Reaction Time.

112

Table I5
Baseline Associations Between Neurophysiological Measures of Effortful Control and
Behavioral Measures of Attentional Control
Go/No-Go
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1. ERN
-0.91**
-2. ∆ERN
*
3. HC N2
0.35
0.45**
-**
0.44
0.47** 0.68**
-4. ∆N2
Fish Flanker
5. ERN
0.13
0.05
0.14 -0.11
--0.10 -0.06
0.13 -0.07 0.77**
-6. ∆ERN
7. HC N2
0.00
0.18
0.33* 0.02
0.25
0.22
-0.24
-0.13 -0.05 -0.13 0.04
0.43**
-0.19
8. ∆N2
†
9. BDS
0.06
0.07 0.27
0.20 -0.08
0.02 -0.10
0.15
10. RC
0.11
0.17 -0.01 0.04 -0.02
-0.04 -0.10
-0.17
11. DCCS Border
-0.02
-0.02 -0.11 -0.09
0.07
0.29
0.08
0.08
12. DCCS Total
-0.06
-0.05
0.03 0.09 -0.15
-0.01 -0.03
0.23
13. Day/Night
-0.03
-0.14 -0.06 0.10
0.06
-0.04 -0.22 -0.31†
14. Shape Stroop
-0.10
-0.09
0.10 0.17
0.05
0.34* -0.04
-0.15
15. FIST Select 2
-0.21
-0.18
0.08 0.12 -0.14
0.06
0.01
0.06
16. FIST Total
-0.19
-0.16
0.13 0.18 -0.19
0.04 -0.08
0.02
17. Tower of Hanoi 0.26
0.18
0.18 0.34* -0.03
-0.18 -0.01
0.08
18. Yes/No
-0.09
-0.13
0.02 -0.01
0.11
0.17
0.07
0.02
Note. ***p < .001. **p < 0.01. *p < 0.05. †p < 0.10. Text styles of behavioral tasks denote
type of transfer level. Regular text represents near transfer tasks. Italicized text represents
intermediate transfer tasks. Bolded text represents far-intermediate transfer tasks. BDS =
Backward Digit Span. RC = Reverse Categorization. DCCS = Dimensional Card Change
Sort. FIST = Flexible Item Shift Task.

113

Table I6
Post-Assessment Associations Between Neurophysiological Measures of Effortful Control
and Behavioral Measures of Attentional Control
Go/No-Go
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1. ERN
-0.88**
-2. ∆ERN
*
3. HC N2
0.38
0.40*
-*
0.33
0.27†
0.70**
-4. ∆N2
Fish Flanker
5. ERN
0.35*
0.25
0.17
0.34*
-*
*
†
0.35
0.37
0.13
0.28
0.80**
-6. ∆ERN
7. HC N2
0.01 -0.02
0.28†
0.05 -0.02
0.07
-0.10
0.07
0.06
-0.08 -0.17 -0.08
0.58**
-8. ∆N2
†
9. BDS
0.09
0.03
0.07 -0.02
0.18
0.19 -0.27
-0.28†
10. RC
0.22
0.07
0.02
0.17
0.00
-0.09
0.00
-0.09
11. DCCS Border
0.09
0.11
0.05 -0.20
0.15
0.29
-0.16
-0.08
12. DCCS Total
0.09
0.06
-0.11 -0.16
0.13
0.30 -0.29†
0.01
13. Day/Night
0.01 -0.20
-0.13 -0.06
0.13
0.08
-0.17
-0.23
14. Shape Stroop
0.10
0.11
-0.10 -0.11 -0.24
-0.07
-0.08
0.17
15. FIST Select 2
-0.07 -0.02
0.01 -0.10
0.07
0.04
0.03
-0.16
16. FIST Total
-0.24 -0.38* -0.39* -0.19
0.04
0.00
-0.24
-0.24
17. Tower of Hanoi
0.00
0.10
0.08
0.04 -0.05
-0.01
-0.19
0.07
18. Yes/No
-0.20 -0.17
-0.12
0.06 -0.09
-0.14
0.16
-0.04
Note. ***p < .001. **p < 0.01. *p < 0.05. †p < 0.10. Text styles of behavioral tasks denote type
of transfer level. Regular text represents near transfer tasks. Italicized text represents
intermediate transfer tasks. Bolded text represents far-intermediate transfer tasks. BDS =
Backward Digit Span. RC = Reverse Categorization. DCCS = Dimensional Card Change
Sort. FIST = Flexible Item Shift Task.

114

Table I7
Baseline Associations Between Neurophysiological Measures of Effortful Control and
Behavioral Measures of Inhibitory Control
Go/No-Go
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1. ERN
-0.91**
-2. ∆ERN
*
3. HC N2
0.35 0.45**
-0.44** 0.47** 0.68**
-4. ∆N2
Fish Flanker
5. ERN
0.13
0.05
0.14 -0.11
-**
-0.10
-0.06
0.13
-0.07
0.77
-6. ∆ERN
*
7. HC N2
0.00
0.18 0.33
0.02
0.25
0.22
--0.13 -0.05 -0.13
0.04
0.24
0.43**
-0.19
8. ∆N2
9. Walk-a-line
-0.11 -0.12 -0.14 -0.08
0.02
-0.03
0.11
0.21
10. Simon Says
-0.30 -0.36* -0.31* -0.12 -0.11
-0.12 -0.40* -0.08
11. Hand Game
0.09 -0.07 -0.16
0.08
0.05
0.02
-0.20
-0.14
12. Bear Dragon
-0.36* -0.47** -0.17 -0.11
0.09
0.17
-0.04
0.02
13. Knock-Tap
-0.23 -0.23 -0.11 -0.06 -0.11
-0.28
-0.12
0.26
14. Snack Delay
-0.02 -0.08 -0.10
0.06
0.13
0.12
-0.08
0.27
15. HTKS trials
-0.36* -0.45**
0.00
0.04 -0.23
-0.11
-0.12
0.02
*
**
16. HTKS total
-0.40 -0.44
-0.19 -0.11 -0.12
0.00
-0.10
0.06
17. Whisper Game
-0.10
0.02
0.08
0.08 -0.18
-0.11
-0.32
0.02
Note. ***p < .001. **p < 0.01. *p < 0.05. †p < 0.10. Text styles of behavioral tasks denote type
of transfer level. Regular text represents near transfer tasks. Italicized text represents
intermediate transfer tasks. Bolded text represents far-intermediate transfer tasks. HTKS
= Head-Toes-Knees-Shoulders task.

115

Table I8
Post-Assessment Baseline Associations Between Neurophysiological Measures of Effortful
Control and Behavioral Measures of Inhibitory Control
Go/No-Go
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1. ERN
-0.88**
-2. ∆ERN
*
3. HC N2
0.38 0.40*
-0.33* 0.27† 0.70**
-4. ∆N2
Fish Flanker
5. ERN
0.35* 0.25
0.17
0.34*
-*
*
†
**
0.35
0.37
0.13
0.28
0.80
-6. ∆ERN
†
7. HC N2
0.01 -0.02 0.28
0.05 -0.02
0.07 -0.07 0.06 -0.08 -0.17 -0.08
0.10
0.58**
-8. ∆N2
9. Walk-a-line
-0.22 -0.19 -0.21 -0.21
-0.10
0.01
0.06
0.20
10. Simon Says
-0.15 -0.19 -0.11 -0.05 -0.06
-0.17 -0.12
-0.21
11. Hand Game
0.04 -0.14 -0.09 -0.22
0.08
0.06 -0.19
0.16
12. Bear Dragon
0.06 -0.01 -0.18 -0.08
0.16
0.16 -0.24
-0.48**
13. Knock-Tap
-0.11 -0.09 -0.37* -0.27† -0.23
-0.08 -0.37*
0.06
14. Snack Delay
-0.02 -0.04 -0.10
0.08
0.20
0.21
0.05
-0.15
15. HTKS trials
-0.26 -0.16 -0.14 -0.27† -0.21
-0.06 -0.20
0.21
†
†
16. HTKS total
-0.16 -0.09 -0.17 -0.27
-0.19
-0.05 -0.28
0.06
17. Whisper Game
0.17 0.24
0.18 -0.01 -0.07
-0.05 -0.08
0.04
Note. ***p < .001. **p < 0.01. *p < 0.05. †p < 0.10. Text styles of behavioral tasks denote type
of transfer level. Regular text represents near transfer tasks. Italicized text represents
intermediate transfer tasks. Bolded text represents far-intermediate transfer tasks. HTKS =
Head-Toes-Knees-Shoulders task.

116

Table I9
Baseline Associations Between Neurophysiological Measures of Effortful Control and
Parent-Reported Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function
Go/No-Go
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1. ERN
-0.91** -2. ∆ERN
3. HC N2
0.35* 0.45**
-**
**
0.44 0.47
0.68**
-4. ∆N2
Fish Flanker
5. ERN
0.13 0.05
0.14 -0.11
--0.10 -0.06
0.13 -0.07 0.77**
-6. ∆ERN
*
7. HC N2
0.00 0.18
0.33
0.02 0.25
0.22
--0.13 -0.05
-0.13 0.04 0.19
0.24
0.43**
-8. ∆N2
†
*
9. BRIEF Inhibit
-0.32 -0.36
-0.13 0.06 -0.27 -0.29
-0.13
0.11
10. BRIEF Shift
-0.32† -0.30†
-0.11 -0.10 0.07
0.15
0.09
0.26
11. BRIEF EmoC -0.37* -0.44** -0.07 -0.07 0.14
0.14 -0.06
0.22
12. BRIEF WM
-0.21 -0.14
-0.15 -0.05 -0.27 -0.32 -0.03
0.12
13. BRIEF PlanO -0.15 -0.26
-0.20 -0.07 -0.22 -0.27 -0.25
0.00
14. BRIEF GEC
-0.41* -0.44** -0.17 -0.05 -0.17 -0.18 -0.11
0.21
***
**
*
†
Note. p < .001. p < 0.01. p < 0.05. p < 0.10. BRIEF = Behavior Rating Inventory of
Executive Function, Preschool Version. EmoC = Emotional Control. WM = Working
Memory. PlanO = Plan/Organization. GEC = Global Executive Composite.

117

Table I10
One-Month Follow-Up Associations Between Neurophysiological Measures of Effortful
Control and Parent-Reported Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function
Go/No-Go
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1. ERN
-0.88**
-2. ∆ERN
*
3. HC N2
0.38
0.40*
-*
0.33
0.27† 0.70**
-4. ∆N2
Fish Flanker
5. ERN
0.35*
0.25
0.17
0.34*
-*
*
†
0.35
0.37
0.13
0.28
0.80**
-6. ∆ERN
7. HC N2
0.01
-0.02
0.28†
0.05
-0.02
0.07
-0.10
0.58**
0.07
0.06
-0.08
-0.17
--0.08
8. ∆N2
†
9. BRIEF Inhibit
-0.05
0.04
-0.13
0.06
0.20
0.11
-0.35
-0.19
10. BRIEF Shift
-0.07
-0.04
-0.11
-0.10
-0.12
-0.08
0.10
0.03
11. BRIEF EmoC
0.09
0.01
-0.07
-0.07
0.01
-0.20
-0.24
-0.21
12. BRIEF WM
-0.19
0.01
-0.15
-0.05
0.13
0.12
-0.22
-0.14
13. BRIEF PlanO
-0.18
-0.04
-0.20
-0.07
0.04
-0.05
-0.33†
-0.15
†
14. BRIEF GEC
-0.09
0.00
-0.17
-0.05
0.09
-0.02
-0.29
-0.19
Note. ***p < .001. **p < 0.01. *p < 0.05. †p < 0.10. BRIEF = Behavior Rating Inventory of
Executive Function, Preschool Version. EmoC = Emotional Control. WM = Working Memory.
PlanO = Plan/Organization. GEC = Global Executive Composite.

118

Table I11
Baseline Associations Between Neurophysiological Measures of Effortful Control and
Parent-Reported Child Behavior Checklist
Go/No-Go
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1. ERN
-0.91**
-2. ∆ERN
*
3. HC N2
0.35
0.45**
-**
0.44
0.47** 0.68**
-4. ∆N2
Fish Flanker
5. ERN
0.13
0.05
0.14
-0.11
-**
-0.10
-0.06
0.13
-0.07
0.77
-6. ∆ERN
*
7. HC N2
0.00
0.18
0.33
0.02
0.25
0.22
--0.13
-0.05
-0.13
0.04
0.24 0.43**
-0.19
8. ∆N2
*
*
*
9. CBCL Anxdep
-0.18
-0.24
-0.26
-0.31
0.31
0.29 0.31
0.29
10. CBCL Withdep
-0.16
-0.22 -0.44**
-0.37* 0.39* 0.35* 0.39*
0.35*
11. CBCL Somatic
0.10
0.02
-0.27
-0.11
0.20
0.11
0.20
0.11
12. CBCL Soc P
0.13
0.08
-0.07
0.03
0.20
0.16
0.20
0.16
13. CBCL Attn
0.03
0.05
-0.01
-0.07
0.07
0.01
0.07
0.01
14. CBCL Ruleb
-0.04
-0.02
-0.09
-0.14
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
15. CBCL Agg
-0.09
-0.14
-0.11
-0.09
0.12
0.06
0.12
0.06
*
*
*
*
16. CBCL Int
-0.11
-0.19 -0.38
-0.32
0.36
0.31 0.36
0.31
17. CBCL Ext
-0.08
-0.11
-0.11
-0.11
0.14
0.09
0.14
0.09
Note. ***p < .001. **p < 0.01. *p < 0.05. †p < 0.10. CBCL = Child Behavior Checklist. AnxDep
= Anxious/Depressed. WithDep = Withdrawn/Depressed. Somatic = Somatic Problems.
Soc = Social Problems. Attn = Attention Problems. Ruleb = Rule-breaking Behaviors. Agg
= Aggressive Behaviors. Int = Internalizing Scale. Ext = Externalizing Scale.

119

Table I12
One-Month Follow-Up Associations Between Neurophysiological Measures of Effortful
Control and Parent-Reported Child Behavior Checklist
Go/No-Go
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1. ERN
-0.88**
-2. ∆ERN
*
3. HC N2
0.38
0.40*
-*
0.33
0.27†
0.70**
-4. ∆N2
Fish Flanker
5. ERN
0.35*
0.25
0.17
0.34*
-*
*
†
0.35
0.37
0.13
0.28
0.80**
-6. ∆ERN
†
7. HC N2
0.01
-0.02
0.28
0.05
-0.02
0.07
-0.07
0.06
-0.08
-0.17
0.10
0.58**
--0.08
8. ∆N2
9. CBCL Anxdep
-0.15
0.00
-0.23
-0.04
0.01
-0.03
-0.25
-0.08
10. CBCL Withdep
-0.10
-0.08
-0.27
0.02
0.18
0.07
-0.09
-0.10
11. CBCL Somatic
0.00
0.02
-0.08
0.20
0.15
0.13
-0.29
-0.04
12. CBCL Soc P
0.13
0.09
0.06
0.24
0.09
-0.06
-0.29
0.00
*
13. CBCL Attn
0.03
0.16
0.00
0.14
0.36
0.33
-0.22
-0.18
14. CBCL Ruleb
0.13
0.20
-0.13
0.14
0.16
0.18 -0.44**
-0.26
15. CBCL Agg
0.16
0.14
-0.13
0.10
0.04
-0.02 -0.39*
-0.17
16. CBCL Int
-0.13
-0.02
-0.24
0.04
0.11
0.04
-0.26
-0.10
17. CBCL Ext
0.16
0.18
-0.14
0.12
0.09
0.07 -0.43**
-0.22
Note. ***p < .001. **p < 0.01. *p < 0.05. †p < 0.10. CBCL = Child Behavior Checklist. AnxDep =
Anxious/Depressed. WithDep = Withdrawn/Depressed. Somatic = Somatic Problems. Soc =
Social Problems. Attn = Attention Problems. Ruleb = Rule-breaking Behaviors. Agg =
Aggressive Behaviors. Int = Internalizing Scale. Ext = Externalizing Scale.

120

Table I13
Baseline Associations Between Behavioral Measures of Attentional Control and Inhibitory Control
1. BDS
2. RC
3. DCCS Border
4. DCCS Total
5. Day/Night
6. Shape Stroop
7. FIST Select 2
8. FIST Total
9. Tower of Hanoi
10. Yes/No
11. Walk-a-line
12. Simon Says
13. Hand Game
14. Bear Dragon
15. Knock-Tap
16. Snack Delay*
17. HTKS trials
18. HTKS total
19. Whisper Game

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

-0.07
-0.01
0.29
0.29
0.17
0.48**
0.43**
0.36*
0.21
0.33*
0.30
-0.14
-0.10
0.14
0.06
0.29
0.12
0.44**

--0.15
-0.22
0.03
0.00
-0.10
-0.09
-0.03
-0.01
0.19
0.05
0.08
-0.11
-0.14
-0.25
0.19
0.08
0.28

-0.83**
0.14
0.08
0.26
0.21
0.03
0.16
0.19
-0.06
0.10
-0.06
-0.12
0.14
0.17
0.04
-0.34

-0.12
0.04
0.44**
0.41*
0.27
-0.02
0.09
0.11
0.07
-0.03
0.35*
0.14
0.33*
0.20
-0.23

-0.28
0.20
0.13
0.25
0.31
0.04
0.35*
0.14
0.20
0.17
-0.11
0.18
0.13
-0.15

-0.28
0.29
0.08
0.36*
-0.18
-0.10
-0.05
-0.07
-0.15
0.03
0.13
0.23
0.23

-0.95**
0.12
0.36*
0.11
0.35*
0.02
0.12
0.11
0.30
0.40*
0.40*
0.09

-0.14
0.32
0.06
0.31
-0.02
0.17
0.07
0.30
0.36*
0.41*
0.20

--0.04
0.10
0.16
0.02
-0.08
0.16
0.16
0.25
0.19
-0.01

-0.00
0.02
-0.03
-0.06
-0.11
0.06
0.22
0.11
0.00

-0.32*
-0.40*
0.04
0.08
-0.17
0.21
0.24
0.25

--0.15
0.13
0.24
0.18
0.35*
0.43**
0.10

-0.11
0.07
0.09
0.23
0.09
-0.11

-0.06
0.07
0.19
0.33*
-0.09

-0.09
0.28
0.46**
0.06

-0.05
0.20
-0.16

-0.78**
0.16

-0.19

Note. ***p < .001. **p < 0.01. *p < 0.05. †p < 0.10. First 10 tasks listed are behavioral tasks designed to elicit attentional control
skills. Variables 11-19 represent behavioral tasks designed to elicit inhibitory control skills. Text styles of behavioral tasks denote
type of transfer level. Regular text represents near transfer tasks. Italicized text represents intermediate transfer tasks. Bolded text
represents far-intermediate transfer tasks. *Snack delay scores are reverse coded so that higher scores mean better effortful
control skills. BDS = Backward Digit Span. RC = Reverse Categorization. DCCS = Dimensional Card Change Sort. FIST =
Flexible Item Selection Task. HTKS = Head-Toes-Knees-Shoulders task.

121

Table I14
Post-Assessment Associations Between Behavioral Measures of Attentional Control and Inhibitory Control
1. BDS
2. RC
3. DCCS Border
4. DCCS Total
5. Day/Night
6. Shape Stroop
7. FIST Select 2
8. FIST Total
9. Tower of Hanoi
10. Yes/No
11. Walk-a-line
12. Simon Says
13. Hand Game
14. Bear Dragon
15. Knock-Tap
16. Snack Delay*
17. HTKS trials
18. HTKS total
19. Whisper Game

1
--0.01
0.22
0.20
0.16
0.28
0.13
0.22
0.12
-0.11
0.00
0.35*
-0.09
0.04
-0.13
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.03

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

--0.22
-0.20
0.20
-0.10
-0.13
-0.06
0.35*
-0.02
-0.19
0.09
0.25
-0.06
-0.03
-0.04
0.03
0.07
0.00

-0.98**
0.04
-0.10
0.04
-0.23
0.07
-0.27
-0.01
0.18
0.22
0.20
0.07
-0.14
0.38*
0.33*
0.14

-0.09
-0.12
0.08
-0.18
0.09
-0.24
-0.01
0.15
0.21
0.19
0.05
-0.15
0.36*
0.32*
0.13

-0.05
-0.35*
0.36*
-0.01
0.18
0.17
0.17
0.21
0.14
-0.10
-0.23
0.21
0.15
-0.09

--0.45**
0.19
0.04
0.30
0.29
0.04
-0.19
-0.10
0.35*
0.13
0.07
0.12
0.40*

-0.21
0.04
0.06
0.21
0.00
-0.13
-0.04
-0.44**
0.21
-0.04
0.00
-0.06

-0.10
0.22
0.33
-0.01
-0.07
-0.03
-0.01
0.24
-0.17
-0.17
-0.17

--0.07
-0.06
0.12
0.27
-0.20
0.25
-0.10
0.17
0.12
-0.14

-0.56**
0.11
-0.23
-0.09
-0.16
0.15
-0.02
-0.05
0.12

--0.05
-0.05
0.11
0.05
0.07
0.37*
0.25
-0.20

--0.17
0.17
-0.11
0.14
0.35*
0.33*
0.06

-0.18
0.31
-0.28
0.29
0.32
-0.08

-0.23
0.07
0.19
0.34*
-0.06

--0.16
0.23
0.31
-0.06

--0.37*
-0.20
0.03

-0.91**
0.12

-0.34*

Note. ***p < .001. **p < 0.01. *p < 0.05. †p < 0.10. First 10 tasks listed are behavioral tasks designed to elicit attentional control
skills. Variables 11-19 represent behavioral tasks designed to elicit inhibitory control skills. Text styles of behavioral tasks denote
type of transfer level. Regular text represents near transfer tasks. Italicized text represents intermediate transfer tasks. Bolded text
represents far-intermediate transfer tasks. *Snack delay scores are reverse coded so that higher scores mean better effortful
control skills. BDS = Backward Digit Span. RC = Reverse Categorization. DCCS = Dimensional Card Change Sort. FIST =
Flexible Item Selection Task. HTKS = Head-Toes-Knees-Shoulders task.

122

Table I15
Baseline Associations Between Parent-Reported Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Functions and Child Behavior Checklist
Scores
1. BRIEF Inhibit
2. BRIEF Shift
3. BRIEF EmoC
4. BRIEF WM
5. BRIEF PlanO
6. BRIEF GEC
7. CBCL Anxdep
8. CBCL Withdep
9. CBCL Somatic
10. CBCL Soc P
11. CBCL Attn
12. CBCL Ruleb
13. CBCL Agg
14. CBCL Int
15. CBCL Ext

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

-0.01
0.47**
0.62**
0.46**
0.82**
0.10
0.04
0.31†
0.18
0.48**
0.33*
0.60**
0.16
0.54**

-0.51**
0.04
0.11
0.44**
0.26
0.42**
0.29†
0.04
0.08
-0.25
0.04
0.37*
-0.06

-0.23
0.29†
0.73**
0.34*
0.31
0.50**
0.22
0.27
0.16
0.45**
0.44**
0.38*

-0.64**
0.74**
0.17
0.06
0.19
0.33*
0.60**
0.29†
0.29†
0.17
0.31†

-0.68**
0.25
0.17
0.31†
0.31†
0.39*
0.22
0.27†
0.29†
0.27†

-0.30
0.26
0.46**
0.30†
0.54**
0.24
0.52**
0.39*
0.46**

-0.62**
0.47**
0.60**
0.42**
0.34*
0.30*
0.90**
0.34*

-0.47**
0.36*
0.29
0.21
0.22
0.82**
0.23

-0.67**
0.61**
0.52**
0.51**
0.74**
0.55**

-0.66**
0.54**
0.42**
0.66**
0.49**

-0.52**
0.58**
0.52**
0.60**

-0.73**
0.42**
0.87**

-0.41**
0.97**

-0.44**

Note. ***p < .001. **p < 0.01. *p < 0.05. †p < 0.10. BRIEF = Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Functions. EmoC = Emotional
Control. WM = Working Memory. PlanO = Plan/Organize. GEC = Global Executive Composite. CBCL = Child Behavior
Checklist. AnxDep = Anxious/Depressed. WithDep = Withdrawn/Depressed. Somatic = Somatic Problems. Soc = Social Problems.
Attn = Attention Problems. Ruleb = Rule-breaking Behaviors. Agg = Aggressive Behaviors. Int = Internalizing Scale. Ext =
Externalizing Scale.

123

Table I16
One-Month Follow-Up Associations Between Parent-Reported Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Functions and Child
Behavior Checklist Scores
1. BRIEF Inhibit
2. BRIEF Shift
3. BRIEF EmoC
4. BRIEF WM
5. BRIEF PlanO
6. BRIEF GEC
7. CBCL Anxdep
8. CBCL Withdep
9. CBCL Somatic
10. CBCL Soc P
11. CBCL Attn
12. CBCL Ruleb
13. CBCL Agg
14. CBCL Int
15. CBCL Ext

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

-0.34*
0.54**
0.67**
0.68**
0.87**
0.37*
0.54**
0.14
0.39*
0.77**
0.71**
0.77**
0.48**
0.78**

-0.57**
0.25
0.23
0.62**
0.58**
0.71**
0.23
0.30
0.21
0.26
0.34*
0.70**
0.32

-0.30
0.37*
0.75**
0.37*
0.44**
0.17
0.46**
0.29
0.49**
0.69**
0.45**
0.63**

-0.89**
0.78**
0.44**
0.45**
0.16
0.18
0.65**
0.55**
0.40*
0.49**
0.48**

-0.79**
0.34*
0.38*
0.17
0.12
0.52**
0.55**
0.48**
0.40*
0.53**

-0.53**
0.66**
0.22
0.41*
0.66**
0.68**
0.73**
0.65**
0.75**

-0.54**
0.58**
0.64**
0.50**
0.43**
0.38*
0.94**
0.42**

-0.17
0.38*
0.51**
0.52**
0.43**
0.73**
0.49**

-0.59**
0.35*
0.24
0.14
0.67**
0.19

-0.52**
0.43**
0.44**
0.67**
0.46**

-0.56**
0.52**
0.57**
0.56**

-0.81**
0.51**
0.94**

-0.42**
0.97**

-0.48**

Note. ***p < .001. **p < 0.01. *p < 0.05. †p < 0.10. BRIEF = Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Functions. EmoC = Emotional
Control. WM = Working Memory. PlanO = Plan/Organize. GEC = Global Executive Composite. CBCL = Child Behavior
Checklist. AnxDep = Anxious/Depressed. WithDep = Withdrawn/Depressed. Somatic = Somatic Problems. Soc = Social Problems.
Attn = Attention Problems. Ruleb = Rule-breaking Behaviors. Agg = Aggressive Behaviors. Int = Internalizing Scale. Ext =
Externalizing Scale.

124

REFERENCES

125

REFERENCES

Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Child behavior checklist/4--18. Burlington: University of Vermont.
Albrecht, B., Brandeis, D., Uebel, H., Heinrich, H., Heise, A., Hasselhorn, M., … Banaschewski, T.
(2010). Action monitoring in children with or without a family history of ADHD--effects of
gender on an endophenotype parameter. Neuropsychologia, 48(4), 1171–7.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.12.018
Barry, R., Johnstone, S., & Clarke, A. (2003). A review of electrophysiology in attentiondeficit/hyperactivity disorder: II. Event-related potentials. Clinical Neurophysiology, 114, 184–198.
http://doi.org/10.1016/S
Bergman-Nutley, S., Söderqvist, S., Bryde, S., Thorell, L. B., Humphreys, K., & Klingberg, T. (2011).
Gains in fluid intelligence after training non-verbal reasoning in 4-year-old children: a
controlled, randomized study. Developmental Science, 14(3), 591–601.
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2010.01022.x
Blair, C., & Razza, R. P. (2007). Relating effortful control, executive function, and false belief
understanding to emerging math and literacy ability in kindergarten. Child Development, 78(2),
647–63. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01019.x
Brandeis, D., Van Leeuwen, T. H., Rubia, K., Vitacco, D., Steger, J., Pascual-Marqui, R. D., &
Steinhausen, H. C. (1998). Neuroelectric mapping reveals precursor of stop failures in children
with attention deficits. Behavioural Brain Research, 94, 111–125. http://doi.org/10.1016/S01664328(97)00174-5
Bress, J. N., Meyer, A., & Hajcak, G. (2013). Differentiating Anxiety and Depression in Children and
Adolescents: Evidence From Event-Related Brain Potentials. Journal of Clinical Child and
Adolescent Psychology : The Official Journal for the Society of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology,
American Psychological Association, Division 53, 1–12.
http://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2013.814544
Broyd, S. J., Johnstone, S. J., Barry, R. J., Clarke, A. R., McCarthy, R., Selikowitz, M., & Lawrence, C.
a. (2005). The effect of methylphenidate on response inhibition and the event-related potential
of children with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder. International Journal of Psychophysiology :
Official Journal of the International Organization of Psychophysiology, 58(1), 47–58.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2005.03.008
Burgio-Murphy, A., Klorman, R., Shaywitz, S. E., Fletcher, J. M., Marchione, K. E., Holahan, J., …
Shaywitz, B. a. (2007). Error-related event-related potentials in children with attention-deficit
hyperactivity disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, reading disorder, and math disorder.
Biological Psychology, 75(1), 75–86. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2006.12.003
Cao, J., Wang, S., Ren, Y., Zhang, Y., Cai, J., Tu, W., … Xia, Y. (2013). Interference control in 6-11

126

year-old children with and without ADHD: behavioral and ERP study. International Journal of
Developmental Neuroscience : The Official Journal of the International Society for Developmental Neuroscience,
31(5), 342–9. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdevneu.2013.04.005
Carlson, S. M. (2005). Developmentally sensitive measures of executive function in preschool
children. Developmental neuropsychology, 28(2), 595-616.
Carlson, S. M., Mandell, D. J.,& Williams, L. (2004). Executive function and theory of mind: Stability
and prediction from age 2 to 3. Developmental Psychology, 40, 1105–1122.
Carlson, S. M., Moses, L. J., & Claxton, L. J. (2004). Individual differences in executive functioning
and theory of mind: An investigation of inhibitory control and planning ability. Journal of
Experimental Child Psychology, 87(4), 299–319. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2004.01.002
Casey, B., & Somerville, L. (2011). Behavioral and neural correlates of delay of gratification 40 years
later. Proceedings of the …, 108(36). http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1108561108
Casey, B., Tottenham, N., Liston, C., & Durston, S. (2005). Imaging the developing brain: what have
we learned about cognitive development? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(3), 104–110.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2005.01.011
Caspi, A. (1996). Behavioral Observations at Age 3 Years Predict Adult Psychiatric Disorders.
Archives of General Psychiatry, 53(11), 1033.
http://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.1996.01830110071009
Clark, C. A. C., Chevalier, N., Nelson, J. M., James, T. D., Garza, J. P., Choi, H. J., & Espy, K. A.
(2016). I. EXECUTIVE CONTROL IN EARLY CHILDHOOD. Monographs of the Society for
Research in Child Development, 81(4), 7-29.
Cortese S., Ferrin M., Brandeis D., Buitelaar J., Daley D., Dittmann R. W., . . . Sonuga-Barke
E. (2015). Cognitive training for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: Meta-analysis of
clinical and neuropsychological outcomes from randomized controlled trials. Journal of the
American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 54, 164–174.
doi:10.1016/j.jaac.2014.12.010
Davies, P. L., Segalowitz, S. J., & Gavin, W. J. (2004). Development of response-monitoring ERPs
in 7- to 25-year-olds. Developmental Neuropsychology, 25, 355–376.
http://doi.org/10.1207/s15326942dn2503_6
Davies, P., Segalowitz, S., & Gavin, W. (2004). Development of Response- Monitoring ERPs in 7to 25- Year-Olds. Developmental …, (February 2015), 37–41.
http://doi.org/10.1207/s15326942dn2503
Diamond, A., & Lee, K. (2011). Interventions shown to aid executive function development in
children 4 to 12 years old. Science (New York, N.Y.), 333(6045), 959–64.
http://doi.org/10.1126/science.1204529

127

Drollette, E. S., Scudder, M. R., Raine, L. B., Moore, R. D., Saliba, B. J., Pontifex, M. B., & Hillman,
C. H. (2014). Acute exercise facilitates brain function and cognition in children who need it
most: an ERP study of individual differences in inhibitory control capacity. Developmental
Cognitive Neuroscience, 7, 53–64. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2013.11.001
Durbin, C. E., & Wilson, S. (2012). Convergent validity of and bias in maternal reports of child
emotion. Psychological Assessment, 24(3), 647–60. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0026607
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R., Nyman, M., Bernzweig, J., & Pinuelas, A. (1994). The Relations of
Emotionality and Regulation to Children’ s Anger-related Reactions. Child …, 65(1), 109–128.
Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1994.tb00738.x/full
Eppinger, B., Mock, B., & Kray, J. (2009). Developmental differences in learning and error
processing: Evidence from ERPs. Psychophysiology, 46(5), 1043-1053.
Espinet, S., Anderson, J., & Zelazo, P. (2012). N2 amplitude as a neural marker of executive
function in young children: an ERP study of children who switch versus perseverate on the
dimensional change card sort. Developmental Cognitive …, 25, 549–558. Retrieved from
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1878929311001356
Espinet, S. D., Anderson, J. E., & Zelazo, P. D. (2013). Reflection training improves executive
function in preschool-age children: behavioral and neural effects. Developmental Cognitive
Neuroscience, 4, 3–15. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2012.11.009
Espy, K. A., Clark, C. A. C., Garza, J. P., Nelson, J. M., James, T. D., & Choi, H. J. (2016). VI.
EXECUTIVE CONTROL IN PRESCHOOLERS: NEW MODELS, NEW RESULTS, NEW
IMPLICATIONS. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 81(4), 111-128.
Fallgatter, A. J., Ehlis, A.-C., Seifert, J., Strik, W. K., Scheuerpflug, P., Zillessen, K. E., … Warnke,
A. (2004). Altered response control and anterior cingulate function in attentiondeficit/hyperactivity disorder boys. Clinical Neurophysiology : Official Journal of the International
Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology, 115(4), 973–81. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2003.11.036
Flook, L., Smalley, S. L., Kitil, M. J., Galla, B. M., Kaiser-Greenland, S., Locke, J., … Kasari, C.
(2010). Effects of Mindful Awareness Practices on Executive Functions in Elementary School
Children. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 26(1), 70–95.
http://doi.org/10.1080/15377900903379125
Franco, A., Malhotra, N., & Simonovits, G. (2016). Underreporting in psychology experiments:
Evidence from a study registry. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7(1), 8-12.
Gehring, W., Liu, Y., Orr, J., & Carp, J. (2012). The error-related negativity (ERN/Ne). In S. Luck &
E. Kappenman (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Event-Related Potential Components (pp. 231–291). New
York: Oxford University Press.
Gerstadt, C. L., Hong, Y. J., & Diamond, a. (1994). The relationship between cognition and action:
performance of children 3 1/2-7 years old on a Stroop-like day-night test. Cognition, 53(2), 129–

128

153. http://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(94)90068-X
Gioia, G. A., Espy, K. A., & Isquith, P. K. (2002). Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function,
Preschool Version (BRIEF-P). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Goldsmith, H. H., Reilly, J., Lemery, K. S., Longley, S., & Prescott, A. (1995). Laboratory
Temperament Assessment Battery: Preschool version. Unpublished manuscript.
Grammer, J. K., Carrasco, M., Gehring, W. J., & Morrison, F. J. (2014). Age-related changes in error
processing in young children: a school-based investigation. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 9,
93–105. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2014.02.001
Groen, Y., Wijers, A. a, Mulder, L. J. M., Waggeveld, B., Minderaa, R. B., & Althaus, M. (2008).
Error and feedback processing in children with ADHD and children with Autistic Spectrum
Disorder: an EEG event-related potential study. Clinical Neurophysiology : Official Journal of the
International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology, 119(11), 2476–93.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2008.08.004
Groom, M. J., Liddle, E. B., Scerif, G., Liddle, P. F., Batty, M. J., Liotti, M., & Hollis, C. P. (2013).
Motivational incentives and methylphenidate enhance electrophysiological correlates of error
monitoring in children with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 54(8), 836–45. http://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12069
Hajcak, G., Franklin, M. E., Foa, E. B., & Simons, R. F. (2008). Increased error-related brain activity
in pediatric obsessive-compulsive disorder before and after treatment. American Journal of …,
116–123. Retrieved from http://journals.psychiatryonline.org/article.aspx?articleid=99415
Henderson, H. a. (2010). Electrophysiological correlates of cognitive control and the regulation of
shyness in children. Developmental Neuropsychology, 35(2), 177–93.
http://doi.org/10.1080/87565640903526538
Hillman, C. H., Buck, S. M., Themanson, J. R., Pontifex, M. B., & Castelli, D. M. (2009). Aerobic
fitness and cognitive development: Event-related brain potential and task performance indices
of executive control in preadolescent children. Developmental Psychology, 45(1), 114–29.
http://doi.org/10.1037/a0014437
Hillman, C. H., Erickson, K. I., & Kramer, A. F. (2008). Be smart, exercise your heart: exercise
effects on brain and cognition. Nature Reviews. Neuroscience, 9, 58–65.
http://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2298
Holmes, J., Gathercole, S. E., & Dunning, D. L. (2009). Adaptive training leads to sustained
enhancement of poor working memory in children. Developmental Science, 12(4), F9-15.
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2009.00848.x
Hughes, C. (1998). Finding your marbles: Does preschoolers' strategic behavior predict later
understanding of mind? Developmental psychology, 34(6), 1326 - 1339.

129

Hum, K. M., Manassis, K., & Lewis, M. D. (2013). Neural mechanisms of emotion regulation in
childhood anxiety. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 54, 552–564.
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2012.02609.x
Imhoff, R., Schmidt, A. F., & Gerstenberg, F. (2014). Exploring the interplay of trait self‐control
and ego depletion: Empirical evidence for ironic effects. European Journal of Personality, 28(5),
413-424.
Jacques, S., & Zelazo, P. (2001). The Flexible Item Selection Task ( FIST ): A Measure of Executive
Function in Preschoolers. Developmental Neuropsychology, 20, 37–41.
http://doi.org/10.1207/S15326942DN2003
Johnstone, S., Barry, R., & Clarke, A. (2013). Ten years on : A follow-up review of ERP research in
attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Clinical Neurophysiology, 124, 644–657. Retrieved from
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1388245712006281
Johnstone, S. J., & Galletta, D. (2013). Event-rate effects in the flanker task: ERPs and task
performance in children with and without AD/HD. International Journal of Psychophysiology :
Official Journal of the International Organization of Psychophysiology, 87(3), 340–8.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2012.07.170
Johnstone, S. J., Watt, A. J., & Dimoska, A. (2010). Varying required effort during interference
control in children with AD/HD: task performance and ERPs. International Journal of
Psychophysiology : Official Journal of the International Organization of Psychophysiology, 76(3), 174–85.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2010.03.010
Jonkman, L. M., van Melis, J. J. M., Kemner, C., & Markus, C. R. (2007). Methylphenidate improves
deficient error evaluation in children with ADHD: an event-related brain potential study.
Biological Psychology, 76(3), 217–29. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2007.08.004
Klauer, K. J. (2001). Handbook of cognitive training [Handbuch Kognitives Training]. Göttingen:
Hogrefe.
Klenberg, L., Korkman, M., & Lahti-Nuuttila, P. (2001). Differential Development of Attention and
Executive Functions in 3- to 12-Year-Old Finnish Children. Developmental Neuropsychology, 20(1),
407–428. http://doi.org/10.1207/S15326942DN2001
Klingberg, T., Fernell, E., Olesen, P. J., Johnson, M., Gustafsson, P., Dahlström, K., … Westerberg,
H. (2005). Computerized training of working memory in children with ADHD--a randomized,
controlled trial. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 44(2), 177–86.
http://doi.org/10.1097/00004583-200502000-00010
Kochanska, G., Murray, K., Jacques, T. Y., Koenig, A. L., & Vandegeest, K. A. (1996). Inhibitory
control in young children and its role in emerging internalization. Child Development, 67, 490–
507.
Kochanska, G., Murray, K. T., & Harlan, E. T. (2000). Effortful control in early childhood:
130

continuity and change, antecedents, and implications for social development. Developmental
Psychology, 36, 220–232. http://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.36.2.220
Kopp, C. (1982). Antecedents of Self-Regulation : A Developmental Perspective. Developmental
Psychology, 18(2), 199–214. Retrieved from http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/dev/18/2/199/
Ladouceur, C. D., Conway, A., & Dahl, R. E. (2010). Attentional control moderates relations
between negative affect and neural correlates of action monitoring in adolescence. Developmental
Neuropsychology, 35(2), 194–211. http://doi.org/10.1080/87565640903526553
Ladouceur, C. D., Dahl, R. E., Birmaher, B., Axelson, D. A., & Ryan, N. D. (2006). Increased errorrelated negativity (ERN) in childhood anxiety disorders: ERP and source localization. Journal of
Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 47, 1073–1082.
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2006.01654.x
Lakes, K. D., & Hoyt, W. T. (2004). Promoting self-regulation through school-based martial arts
training. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 25(3), 283–302.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2004.04.002
Lin, M., Gavin, W. J., & Davies, P. L. (2015). Developmental trend of error-related negativity (ERN)
in 7- to 25-year-olds after adjusting for trial-to-trial variability. Poster presented at annual
meeting of Society of Psychophysiological Research, Seattle, WA.
Lo, S. L., Schroder, H. S., Moran, T. P., Durbin, C. E., & Moser, J. S. (2015). Neurophysiological
evidence of an association between cognitive control and defensive reactivity processes in
young children. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 15, 35–47.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2015.09.001
Lo, S. L., Schroder, H. S., Fisher, M. E., Durbin, C. E., Fitzgerald, K. D., Danovitch, J. H., & Moser,
J. S. (2016). Associations between Disorder-Specific Symptoms of Anxiety and ErrorMonitoring Brain Activity in Young Children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 1-10.
Mathalon, D. H., Whitfield, S. L., & Ford, J. M. (2003). Anatomy of an error: ERP and fMRI.
Biological Psychology, 64, 119–141. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-0511(03)00105-4
McClelland, M. M., & Cameron, C. (2012). Self-regulation in early child- hood: Improving
conceptual clarity and developing ecologically-valid measures. Child Development Perspectives, 6,
136–142. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ j.1750-8606.2011.00191.x
McDermott, J. M., Perez-Edgar, K., Henderson, H. a, Chronis-Tuscano, A., Pine, D. S., & Fox, N.
a. (2009). A history of childhood behavioral inhibition and enhanced response monitoring in
adolescence are linked to clinical anxiety. Biological Psychiatry, 65(5), 445–8.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2008.10.043
Melby-Lervåg M., Hulme C. (2013). Is working memory training effective? A meta-analytic review.
Developmental Psychology, 49, 270–291. doi:10.1037/a0028228

131

Melby-Lervåg, M., Redick, T. S., & Hulme, C. (2016). Working memory training does not improve
performance on measures of intelligence or other measures of “far transfer” evidence from a
meta-analytic review. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(4), 512-534.
Meyer, A., Weinberg, A., Klein, D. N., & Hajcak, G. (2012). The development of the error-related
negativity (ERN) and its relationship with anxiety: evidence from 8 to 13 year-olds.
Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 2(1), 152–61. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2011.09.005
Moffitt, T. E., Arseneault, L., Belsky, D., Dickson, N., Hancox, R. J., Harrington, H., … Caspi, A.
(2011). A gradient of childhood self-control predicts health, wealth, and public safety.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108(7), 2693–8.
http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1010076108
Moser, J. S., Moran, T. P., Schroder, H. S., Donnellan, M. B., & Yeung, N. (2013). On the
relationship between anxiety and error monitoring: a meta-analysis and conceptual framework.
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 466. http://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00466
Moser, J. S., Moran, T. P., Schroder, H. S., Donnellan, M. B., & Yeung, N. (2014). The case for
compensatory processes in the relationship between anxiety and error monitoring: a reply to
Proudfit, Inzlicht, and Mennin. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8(February), 64.
http://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00064
Murray, K., & Kochanska, G. (2002). Effortful control: Factor structure and relation to externalizing
and internalizing behaviors. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 30(5), 503–514. Retrieved from
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1019821031523
Pliszka, S. R., Liotti, M., & Woldorff, M. G. (2000). Inhibitory control in children with attentiondeficit/hyperactivity disorder: Event-related potentials identify the processing component and
timing of an impaired right-frontal response-inhibition mechanism. Biological Psychiatry, 48, 238–
246. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3223(00)00890-8
Pontifex, M. B., Raine, L. B., Johnson, C. R., Chaddock, L., Voss, M. W., Cohen, N. J., … Hillman,
C. H. (2011). Cardiorespiratory fitness and the flexible modulation of cognitive control in
preadolescent children. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23(6), 1332–45.
http://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2010.21528
Pontifex, M. B., Saliba, B. J., Raine, L., Picchietti, D., & Hillman, C. (2013). Exercise Improves
Behavioral, Neurocognitive, and Scholastic Performance in Children with ADHD. Journal of
Pediatrics, 162(3), 543–551. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2012.08.036.Exercise
Proudfit, G. H., Inzlicht, M., & Mennin, D. S. (2013). Anxiety and error monitoring: the importance
of motivation and emotion. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7(October), 1–4.
http://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00636
Rapport M. D., Orban S. A., Kofler M. J., Friedman L. M. (2013). Do programs designed to train
working memory, other executive functions, and attention benefit children with ADHD? A
meta-analytic review of cognitive, academic, and behavioral outcomes. Clinical Psychology

132

Review, 33, 1237–1252. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2013.08.005
Redick, T. S., Shipstead, Z., Harrison, T. L., Hicks, K. L., Fried, D. E., Hambrick, D. Z., ... & Engle,
R. W. (2013). No evidence of intelligence improvement after working memory training: a
randomized, placebo-controlled study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142(2), 359.
Riesel, A., Weinberg, A., Endrass, T., Meyer, A., & Hajcak, G. (2013). The ERN is the ERN is the
ERN? Convergent validity of error-related brain activity across different tasks. Biological
Psychology, 93(3), 377–85. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2013.04.007
Rosch, K. S., & Hawk, L. W. (2013). The effects of performance-based rewards on
neurophysiological correlates of stimulus, error, and feedback processing in children with
ADHD. Psychophysiology, 50(11), 1157–73. http://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.12127
Rothbart, M. (1989). Temperament in childhood: A framework. In Temperament in childhood (pp. 59–
73).
Rothbart, M., Ellis, L. K., Rueda, M. R., & Posner, M. I. (2003). Developing Mechanisms of
Temperamental Effortful Control. Journal of Personality, 71, 1113–1143.
http://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.7106009
Rothbart, M., & Rueda, M. R. (2005). The development of effortful control. In Developing individuality
in the human brain: A tribute to Michael I. Posner (pp. 167–188). http://doi.org/10.1037/11108-009
Rothbart, M., Sheese, B. E., & Posner, M. I. (2007). Executive Attention and Effortful Control:
Linking Temperament, Brain Networks, and Genes. Child Development Perspectives, 1(1), 2–7.
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-8606.2007.00002.x
Rueda, M. R., Checa, P., & Cómbita, L. M. (2012). Enhanced efficiency of the executive attention
network after training in preschool children: immediate changes and effects after two months.
Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 2 Suppl 1, S192-204.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2011.09.004
Rueda, M. R., Rothbart, M. K., McCandliss, B. D., Saccomanno, L., & Posner, M. I. (2005).
Training, maturation, and genetic influences on the development of executive attention.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(41), 14931–6.
http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0506897102
Sala, G., & Gobet, F. (2017). Working Memory Training in Typically Developing Children: A MetaAnalysis of the Available Evidence. Developmental Psychology, 37–41.
Santesso, D., Segalowitz, S., & Schmidt, L. (2006). Error-Related Electrocortical Responses Are
Enhanced in Children With Obsessive – Compulsive Behaviors. Developmental …, 29(3), 37–41.
http://doi.org/10.1207/s15326942dn2903
Schmitt, S. a., McClelland, M. M., Tominey, S. L., & Acock, A. C. (2014). Strengthening school
readiness for Head Start children: Evaluation of a self-regulation intervention. Early Childhood

133

Research Quarterly, 1–12. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2014.08.001
Senderecka, M., Grabowska, A., Szewczyk, J., Gerc, K., & Chmylak, R. (2012). Response inhibition
of children with ADHD in the stop-signal task: an event-related potential study. International
Journal of Psychophysiology : Official Journal of the International Organization of Psychophysiology, 85(1),
93–105. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2011.05.007
Shiels, K., & Hawk, L. W. (2010). Self-regulation in ADHD: the role of error processing. Clinical
Psychology Review, 30(8), 951–61. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2010.06.010
Sibley, B., & Etnier, J. (2003). The relationship between physical activity and cognition in children: a
meta-analysis. Pediatric Exercise Science, 2000(15), 243–256. Retrieved from
http://www.humankinetics.com/acucustom/sitename/Documents/DocumentItem/2196.pdf
Smith, J. L., Johnstone, S. J., & Barry, R. J. (2004). Inhibitory processing during the Go/NoGo task:
an ERP analysis of children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Clinical
Neurophysiology : Official Journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology, 115(6), 1320–
31. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2003.12.027
Spronk, M., Jonkman, L. M., & Kemner, C. (2008). Response inhibition and attention processing in
5- to 7-year-old children with and without symptoms of ADHD: An ERP study. Clinical
Neurophysiology : Official Journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology, 119(12),
2738–52. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2008.09.010
Strommen, E. A. (1973). Verbal self-regulation in a children’s game: Impulsive errors on “Simon
says.” Child Development, 44, 849–853.
Thorell, L. B., Lindqvist, S., Bergman Nutley, S., Bohlin, G., & Klingberg, T. (2009). Training and
transfer effects of executive functions in preschool children. Developmental Science, 12(1), 106–13.
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2008.00745.x
Tominey, S. L., & McClelland, M. M. (2011). Red Light, Purple Light: Findings From a Randomized
Trial Using Circle Time Games to Improve Behavioral Self-Regulation in Preschool. Early
Education & Development, 22(3), 489–519. http://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2011.574258
Torpey, D. C., Hajcak, G., Kim, J., Kujawa, A. J., Dyson, M. W., Olino, T. M., & Klein, D. N.
(2013). Error-related brain activity in young children: associations with parental anxiety and
child temperamental negative emotionality. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied
Disciplines, 54(8), 854–62. http://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12041
Torpey, D. C., Hajcak, G., Kim, J., Kujawa, A., & Klein, D. N. (2012). Electrocortical and
behavioral measures of response monitoring in young children during a Go/No‐Go
task. Developmental psychobiology, 54(2), 139-150.
Tuckman, B. W., & Hinkle, J. S. (1986). An experimental study of the physical and psychological
effects of aerobic exercise on schoolchildren. Health Psychology, 5, 197–207.

134

Tye, C., Asherson, P., Ashwood, K. L., Azadi, B., Bolton, P., & McLoughlin, G. (2014). Attention
and inhibition in children with ASD, ADHD and co-morbid ASD + ADHD: an event-related
potential study. Psychological Medicine, 44(5), 1101–16.
http://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291713001049
van Meel, C. S., Heslenfeld, D. J., Oosterlaan, J., & Sergeant, J. a. (2007). Adaptive control deficits in
attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): the role of error processing. Psychiatry
Research, 151(3), 211–20. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2006.05.011
van Veen, V., & Carter, C. S. (2002). The timing of action-monitoring processes in the anterior
cingulate cortex. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 14(4), 593–602. Retrieved from
http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/08989290260045837
van Veen, V., Cohen, J. D., Botvinick, M. M., Stenger, V. a, & Carter, C. S. (2001). Anterior
cingulate cortex, conflict monitoring, and levels of processing. NeuroImage, 14(6), 1302–8.
http://doi.org/10.1006/nimg.2001.0923
Weinberg, A., & Hajcak, G. (2011). Longer term test-retest reliability of error-related brain activity.
Psychophysiology, 48, 1420–1425. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2011.01206.x
Wechsler, D. (2003). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Fourth Edition (WISC-IV). San
Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
Whittle, S., Allen, N. B., Lubman, D. I., & Yücel, M. (2006). The neurobiological basis of
temperament: towards a better understanding of psychopathology. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral
Reviews, 30(4), 511–25. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2005.09.003
Wiebe, S. A., Espy, K. A., & Charak, D. (2008). Using confirmatory factor analysis to understand
executive control in preschool children: I. Latent structure. Developmental psychology, 44(2), 575.
Willoughby, M. T., Blair, C. B., Wirth, R. J., & Greenberg, M. (2012). The measurement of executive
function at age 5: psychometric properties and relationship to academic
achievement. Psychological assessment, 24(1), 226.
Wolfe, C. D., & Bell, M. A. (2004). Working memory and inhibitory control in early childhood:
Contributions from physiology, temperament, and language. Developmental Psychobiology, 44(1),
68–83. http://doi.org/10.1002/dev.10152
Woody, C. D. (1967). Characterization of an adaptive filter for the analysis of variable latency
neuroelectric signals. Medical and biological engineering, 5(6), 539-554.
Yeung, N., Botvinick, M. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2004). The neural basis of error detection: conflict monitoring
and the error-related negativity. Psychological review (Vol. 111).
Yeung, N., & Cohen, J. D. (2006). The Impact of Cognitive Deficits on Conflict Monitoring.
Psychological Science, 17(2), 164–171.

135

Yeung, N., & Summerfield, C. (2012). Metacognition in human decision-making: confidence and
error monitoring. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.
http://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2011.0416
Zelazo, P.D., 2006. The dimensional change card sort (DCCS): a method of assessing executive
function in children. Nature Protocols 1, 297–301.
Zelazo, P. D., Anderson, J. E., Richler, J., Wallner-Allen, K., Beaumont, J. L., & Weintraub, S.
(2013). II. NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery (CB): measuring executive function and attention.
Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 78(4), 16–33.
http://doi.org/10.1111/mono.12032

136