Bailey A Munro, Lisa L Weyandt, Lily E Hall, Danielle R Oster, Bergljot Gyda Gudmundsdottir, Benjamin G Kuhar
{"title":"Physiological substrates of executive functioning: a systematic review of the literature.","authors":"Bailey A Munro, Lisa L Weyandt, Lily E Hall, Danielle R Oster, Bergljot Gyda Gudmundsdottir, Benjamin G Kuhar","doi":"10.1007/s12402-017-0226-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Executive function (EF) is a multifaceted construct that has been defined as a set of higher-order cognitive processes that allow for flexibility, self-regulation, strategic planning, and goal-directed behaviors. EFs have been studied in numerous clinical disorders using a variety of neuropsychological tasks and, more recently, neuroimaging techniques. The underlying physiological substrates of EF were historically attributed to the frontal lobes; however, recent studies suggest more widespread involvement of additional brain regions. The purpose of the present study was to conduct a systematic review (using PRISMA 2009 guidelines) of neuroimaging studies employing functional magnetic resonance imaging and diffusion tensor imaging methods investigating the physiological substrates of EFs in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder compared to other clinical groups and non-clinical participants. Research articles were retrieved using PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, MEDLINE, and ScienceDirect, beginning February 2015 through May 2016. A total of 42 studies met eligibility. Of those 42 studies, 22 studies included clinical participants and 20 studies included non-clinical participants. Results revealed increased activation of the frontal brain region in the majority of non-clinical studies and approximately 50% of the clinical studies, albeit with some inconsistencies across subregions, tasks, and age groups. Implications, methodological limitations, and suggestions for future research are discussed.</p>","PeriodicalId":88387,"journal":{"name":"Attention deficit and hyperactivity disorders","volume":"10 1","pages":"1-20"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s12402-017-0226-9","citationCount":"23","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Attention deficit and hyperactivity disorders","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12402-017-0226-9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2017/3/22 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 23
Abstract
Executive function (EF) is a multifaceted construct that has been defined as a set of higher-order cognitive processes that allow for flexibility, self-regulation, strategic planning, and goal-directed behaviors. EFs have been studied in numerous clinical disorders using a variety of neuropsychological tasks and, more recently, neuroimaging techniques. The underlying physiological substrates of EF were historically attributed to the frontal lobes; however, recent studies suggest more widespread involvement of additional brain regions. The purpose of the present study was to conduct a systematic review (using PRISMA 2009 guidelines) of neuroimaging studies employing functional magnetic resonance imaging and diffusion tensor imaging methods investigating the physiological substrates of EFs in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder compared to other clinical groups and non-clinical participants. Research articles were retrieved using PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, MEDLINE, and ScienceDirect, beginning February 2015 through May 2016. A total of 42 studies met eligibility. Of those 42 studies, 22 studies included clinical participants and 20 studies included non-clinical participants. Results revealed increased activation of the frontal brain region in the majority of non-clinical studies and approximately 50% of the clinical studies, albeit with some inconsistencies across subregions, tasks, and age groups. Implications, methodological limitations, and suggestions for future research are discussed.