| Title |
Executive Function and the Frontal Lobes: A Meta-Analytic Review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Neuropsychology Review, June 2006
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11065-006-9002-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Julie A. Alvarez, Eugene Emory |
| Abstract |
Currently, there is debate among scholars regarding how to operationalize and measure executive functions. These functions generally are referred to as "supervisory" cognitive processes because they involve higher level organization and execution of complex thoughts and behavior. Although conceptualizations vary regarding what mental processes actually constitute the "executive function" construct, there has been a historical linkage of these "higher-level" processes with the frontal lobes. In fact, many investigators have used the term "frontal functions" synonymously with "executive functions" despite evidence that contradicts this synonymous usage. The current review provides a critical analysis of lesion and neuroimaging studies using three popular executive function measures (Wisconsin Card Sorting Test, Phonemic Verbal Fluency, and Stroop Color Word Interference Test) in order to examine the validity of the executive function construct in terms of its relation to activation and damage to the frontal lobes. Empirical lesion data are examined via meta-analysis procedures along with formula derivatives. Results reveal mixed evidence that does not support a one-to-one relationship between executive functions and frontal lobe activity. The paper concludes with a discussion of the implications of construing the validity of these neuropsychological tests in anatomical, rather than cognitive and behavioral, terms. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 2,248 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 20 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 17 | <1% |
| Germany | 6 | <1% |
| Spain | 6 | <1% |
| France | 6 | <1% |
| Brazil | 6 | <1% |
| Italy | 5 | <1% |
| Portugal | 4 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 3 | <1% |
| Other | 34 | 2% |
| Unknown | 2141 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 467 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 399 | 18% |
| Researcher | 269 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 268 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 173 | 8% |
| Other | 339 | 15% |
| Unknown | 333 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 977 | 43% |
| Neuroscience | 241 | 11% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 189 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 89 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 72 | 3% |
| Other | 252 | 11% |
| Unknown | 428 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 May 2022.
All research outputs
#1,700,915
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from Neuropsychology Review
#57
of 504 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,013
of 88,963 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neuropsychology Review
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 504 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 88,963 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them