|WikiProject Psychology||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Medicine||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
Part of this article is adapted from my own lecture notes which are open access (and linked to in the article). Full permission is given to use them here - Vaughan 18:08, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I suggested merging executive system and executive functions because they seem like duplicates, or are at least significantly overlapping, and treat the same subject. I think "executive system" is the slightly better title, and executive function and executive functioning both redirect to it rather than to executive functions.
188.8.131.52 09:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I think that the two topics have a lot of overlap. I have heard more use of the term "executive function" so that would by preference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 19:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I get the impression that the terms executive functions/system are falling out of favor. The term cognitive control (redirects to executive functions) is much more widely used. A google-scholar search from 2004 onwards scores almost 450.000 on cognitive control. The search 'executive' scores only 210.000 (even though executive can refer to many things outside of psychology). 220.127.116.11 (talk) 14:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC) So my suggestion would be to merge under cognitive control. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 14:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
As a neuropsychologist who uses these terms every day and in professional circles I would prefer maintaining executive function and system over cognitive control as I believe the former have more specific meaning. I would not even say they're synonymous although many aspects of executive function relate to cognitive control. I definitely wouldn't rely on search hits to determine which term should be used--there are way too many intervening variables. I would also argue for combining the two sections. It should also be mentioned that executive function is presently a kind of umbrella term encompassing various generally agreed upon features but it's still a bit of a fuzzy area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 04:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Let's merge and keep the name Executive functions. That is the name brought me here, and the above has experience in the field.
At least in the fields of traumatic brain injury and intelligence testing the term executive function is used. We do not use cognitive control because impulsiveness, and response inhibition, while aspects of executive function, form a very small part of it. Executive functions refer to problem solving, planning, organizing ect. You will find a large number of hits for cognitive control because it is a vague term that appears all over the field of psychology, from psychopathology to social psychology. It really is an inadequate term for the higher order processes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 09:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Executive function --- pets?
By introspection it seems to me that there might be a relationship between executive function and instinctive goal-oriented behaviors - the desire to rear children, and as a surrogate, the interest in maintaining pet animals. I'd expect those with weak executive function to have much less interest in keeping a pet. In a very quick search I found plenty of light and fluffy articles recommending that declining seniors rejuvenate executive function through interaction with pets, but not with any suggestion of a fundamental neurological relationship. Has this been investigated? 188.8.131.52 (talk) 05:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
You will find in individuals who have sustained a serious injury to the frontal lobe (Executive function) cannot even prompt themselves to follow a plan, best exemplified in the many individuals who cannot prepare themselves for the day. You would see less interest in keeping a pet, but you would also see the decline in most activity in the individual. You would probably find the hypothesized relationship, but there are so many other important variables you would never get funding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 09:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section., and are posted here for posterity. Following
|Having the descriptive/phenomenological in one entry and the [possible] neurological mechanisms in another works well. Rather than combine, refine (not much needed) and cross reference. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 18:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)|
Last edited at 18:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 14:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)