4.5 Article

Alerting, orienting, and executive control in intellectually gifted children

期刊

BRAIN AND BEHAVIOR
卷 11, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/brb3.2148

关键词

attention network test; attentional processes; executive control; intellectual giftedness

资金

  1. European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)
  2. Regional Council of Haut de France

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Intellectually gifted children outperformed intellectually average children in terms of accuracy in processing tasks and specifically excelled in executive control. This suggests that intellectually gifted children have better ability to focus and solve simple perceptual conflicts compared to intellectually average children.
Introduction Intellectually gifted children have higher performance in many domains of attention than intellectually average children. However, these empirical findings are not consistent in the literature. Few studies investigated the characteristics of alerting, orienting, and executive control networks in intellectually gifted children. The aim of our study was to investigate their characteristics of attentional abilities compared to intellectually average children. Method Fifty-five intellectually gifted children (age range 8-14 years old) were compared to 55 intellectually average children (age range 8-14 years old) using the Attention Network Test (ANT) to assess these three attentional constructs. Results Intellectually gifted children made fewer errors than intellectually average children in the processing of the ANT. In terms of attention network scores, they also outperformed intellectually average children in executive control only. Conclusion Intellectually gifted children do not differ from intellectual average children in terms of the speed of processing in a speeded task such as ANT, but they stand out in terms of accuracy of processing. Intellectually gifted children have better ability to focus volitionally in order to solve a simple perceptual conflict than intellectually average children.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据