Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33457470›Full record

ReviewCurrent opinion in behavioral sciences2020

Sensitive periods in executive function development.

Abigail Thompson, Nikolaus Steinbeis

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current opinion in behavioral sciences, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

34 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Infant EEG microstate dynamics relate to fine-grained patterns of infant attention during naturalistic play with caregivers.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

2 authors.

Abigail ThompsonDivision of Psychology and Language Sciences, UCL, London, WC1H 0AP, UK.
Nikolaus SteinbeisDivision of Psychology and Language Sciences, UCL, London, WC1H 0AP, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Executive functions (EFs) are cognitive processes that support flexible goal pursuit. Healthy development of EFs during childhood is critical for later life outcomes including health, wealth and educational attainment. As such it is crucial to understand how EFs can be supported and protected against insult. Here we examine whether there are sensitive periods in the development of EFs, by drawing on deprivation and enrichment studies in humans. While there is suggestive evidence that pre-6 months of age constitutes a sensitive period for EF development, given the higher-order nature of EF, we argue for the possibility of multiple sensitive periods of constituent processes. We identify relevant future questions and outline a research agenda to systematically test for sensitive period in EF development.

Identifiers

PMID33457470
PMCPMC7789036

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.