Improving Executive Functions

执行功能（EFs）使我们能够抵制诱惑或自动冲动反应，保持注意力集中，在精神上玩想法，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，这对生活的各个方面都至关重要。我的实验室正在探索如何改善电磁场。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）。研究人员一直专注于训练EFs（或提高有氧适应性以改善EFs），而忽视了影响EFs的强大情感和社会因素。我们将系统地测试来自我提出的一个新理论的预测，该理论提供了一个明显不同的观点，假设如果活动不仅直接训练和挑战ef，而且通过减少损害ef的事物和增强支持ef的事物来间接支持ef，那么活动将最好地改善ef。一个人的不同部分从根本上是相互关联的。我猜想，只专注于训练认知技能的效率更低，最终也不如同时解决情感和社交需求那么成功。例如，许多研究都着眼于通过计算机化的认知训练来改善脑电图。结果总体上令人失望。为什么?我们和其他人提出，这是因为孤立地训练技能会产生对特定任务策略和反应模式的机械学习。当人们需要对他们所关心的现实世界的应用有更深层次的理解时，他们就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去，在哪些方面他们想要做的事情需要改进EFs，在哪些方面活动中的导师和经验能激发并灌输自豪感和自信心。虽然那些更适合有氧运动的人往往有更好的EFs，但有氧干预很少产生比对照组更好的EFs。我认为这不是关于提高有氧能力或运动技能本身。如果一个活动不要求和挑战EFs，它们就不会得到改善。此外，如果EF只用于任意的、非情境化的用途（例如，从一项运动中学习一项技能，但从不参加这项运动），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。如果一个项目还能带来快乐，建立自信，并提供归属感和社区归属感，那么ef应该会得到更大的改善。如果一个项目忽略了情感或社会需求，这些未被满足的需求将不利于EF的任何改善。通过让研究人员以新的方式思考如何提高认知技能，我们的工作具有令人兴奋的潜力，可以促进科学理解。狭隘地专注于训练认知可能不是提高认知的最佳方式。

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.