Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32431882›Full record

ArticleRoyal Society open science2020

A novel test of flexible planning in relation to executive function and language in young children.

Rachael Miller, Anna Frohnwieser, Ning Ding, Camille A Troisi, Martina Schiestl, Romana Gruber, Alex H Taylor, Sarah A Jelbert, Markus Boeckle, Nicola S Clayton

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Royal Society open science, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. New Caledonian crows plan for specific future tool use.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2020
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 2 institutions in 4 countries.

Rachael MillerDepartment of Psychology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2996-9571
Anna FrohnwieserDepartment of Psychology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5219-4319
Ning DingDepartment of Psychology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Camille A TroisiDepartment of Psychology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4036-3848
Martina SchiestlSchool of Psychology, Auckland University, Auckland, New Zealand.
Romana GruberSchool of Psychology, Auckland University, Auckland, New Zealand.
Alex H TaylorSchool of Psychology, Auckland University, Auckland, New Zealand.
Sarah A JelbertDepartment of Psychology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Markus BoeckleDepartment of Psychology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Nicola S ClaytonDepartment of Psychology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1835-423X
University of Cambridge · GBUniversity of Auckland · NZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In adult humans, decisions involving the choice and use of tools for future events typically require episodic foresight. Previous studies suggest some non-human species are capable of future planning; however, these experiments often cannot fully exclude alternative learning explanations. Here, we used a novel tool-use paradigm aiming to address these critiques to test flexible planning in 3- to 5-year-old children, in relation to executive function and language abilities. In the flexible planning task, children were not verbally cued during testing, single trials avoided consistent exposure to stimulus-reward relationships, and training trials provided experience of a predictable return of reward. Furthermore, unlike most standard developmental studies, we incorporated short delays before and after tool choice. The critical test choice included two tools with equal prior reward experience-each only functional in one apparatus. We tested executive function and language abilities using several standardized tasks. Our results echoed standard developmental research: 4- and 5-year-olds outperformed 3-year-olds on the flexible planning task, and 5-year-old children outperformed younger children in most executive function and language tasks. Flexible planning performance did not correlate with executive function and language performance. This paradigm could be used to investigate flexible planning in a tool-use context in non-human species.

Indexed as

child developmentcomparative cognitionexecutive functionflexible planninglanguage

Identifiers

PMID32431882
PMCPMC7211888
OpenAlexW3011689026

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.