Improving Executive Functions

执行功能（EF）使我们能够抵制诱惑或自动冲动反应，保持专注，在思想上发挥想法，推理，解决问题，灵活地适应变化的需求或优先事项，并从新的和不同的角度看待事物，对生活的各个方面都至关重要。 我的实验室正在推进如何改善EF的前沿。我们预测，这项工作将从根本上改变如何提高EF和认知技能的方法和基本假设（改变整个范式）。 研究人员专注于训练EF（或改善有氧健身以提高EF），忽略了影响EF的强大情感和社会因素。我们将系统地检验从我提出的一个新理论中得出的预测，这个理论提供了一个明显不同的观点，即如果活动不仅直接训练和挑战EF，而且通过减少损害EF的因素和增强支持EF的因素来间接支持EF，那么活动将最好地改善EF。一个人的不同部分基本上是相互关联的。我假设，只专注于训练认知技能，比同时解决情感和社会需求效率更低，最终也更不成功。 例如，许多研究都着眼于通过计算机认知训练来改善EF。结果总体上令人失望。为什么？为什么？我们和其他人认为，这是因为孤立地训练技能会导致对特定任务策略和反应模式的死记硬背。当人们需要对他们关心的真实的世界用途进行更深层次的理解时，他们会在更深层次上学习一些东西。我们需要的是让参与者参与到他们非常关心的活动中，在这些活动中，他们想要做的事情需要改进EF，在这些活动中，导师和经验激发并灌输自豪感和自信心。 虽然那些有氧运动更适合的人往往有更好的EF，有氧干预很少比对照组产生更好的EF。我认为这不是关于提高有氧能力或运动技能本身。如果一项活动不要求和挑战EF，它们就不会改进。此外，如果EF仅被要求用于任意的、脱离上下文的使用（例如，从一项运动中学习一项技能，但从未参加过这项运动），数据显示EF有所改善，但仅此而已;参与现实世界的活动似乎至关重要。如果一个项目也能带来快乐，建立自信，提供归属感和社区感，那么EF应该会有更大的改善。如果一个项目忽视了情感或社会需求，这些未被满足的需求将不利于EF的改善。 我们的工作具有令人兴奋的潜力，通过让研究人员以新的方式思考如何提高认知技能来促进科学理解。狭隘地专注于训练认知可能不是提高认知的最佳方法。

Executive Functions (EFs), which enable us to resist temptations or automatic impulsive reactions, stay focused, mentally play with ideas, reason, problem-solve, flexibly adjust to changed demands or priorities, and see things from new and different perspectives, are crucial for all life's aspects. My lab is pushing the frontiers of how to improve EFs. This work, we predict, will result in fundamentally changing the approach and underlying assumptions (shift the entire paradigm) of how to improve EFs and cognitive skills generally. Researchers have focused on training EFs (or improving aerobic fitness to improve EFs) ignoring powerful emotional and social factors that affect EFs. We will systematically test predictions that derive from a novel theory I have proposed that offers a markedly different perspective in hypothesizing that activities will best improve EFs if they not only train and challenge EFs directly but also indirectly support EFs by lessening things that impair EFs and enhancing things that support EFs. The different parts of a person are fundamentally interrelated. Focusing exclusively on training cognitive skills is, I hypothesize, less efficient and ultimately less successful than also addressing emotional and social needs. For example, many studies have looked at improving EFs via computerized cognitive training. The results have generally been disappointing. Why? We and others propose that is because training skills in isolation produces fairly rote learning of specific task strategies and response patterns. People learn something at a deeper level when they need that deeper level understanding for a real world use they care about. What is needed is to engage participants in activities they care deeply about where improving EFs is needed for what they want to do, where mentors and experiences in that activity inspire and instill pride and self-confidence. Though those who are more aerobically fit tend to have better EFs, aerobic interventions rarely produce better EFs than the control group. I propose it is not about improving aerobic capacity or motor skills per se. If an activity does not demand and challenge EFs, they will not improve. Moreover, if EFs are only demanded for an arbitrary, de-contextualized use (e.g., learning a skill from a sport, but never playing the sport) the data show some EF improvement, but that alone gets one only so far; engaging in the real-world activity seems critical. If a program also brings joy, builds self-confidence, and provides a sense of belonging and community, EFs should improve more. If a program ignores emotional or social needs, those unmet needs will work against any EF improvement. Our work has the exciting potential to advance scientific understanding by getting researchers to think in new ways about how to improve cognitive skills. Focusing narrowly on training cognition may not be the best way to improve cognition.