LEADER 00771nam0 22002533i 450 001 996533767403316 005 20230619104301.0 010 $a978-88-6028-306-1 100 $a20130718d2015----||||0itac50 ba 101 $aita 102 $aIT 200 1 $aAllenare il movimento$edall'allenamento funzionale all'allenamento del movimento$fAlberto Andorlini 210 1 $aTorgiano (PG)$cCalzetti Mariucci$d2015 215 $aV, 345 p.$cill.$d24 cm$e1 DVD-Video 606 0 $aAllenamento sportivo$2BNCF 700 1$aANDORLINI,$bAlberto$01209071 801 0$aIT$bcba$bcba$gREICAT 912 $a996533767403316 951 $aII.4. 4639$b284273 L.M.$cII.4.$d543805 959 $aBK 969 $aUMA 969 $aER 996 $aAllenare il movimento$92789548 997 $aUNISA LEADER 05105nam 2200445z- 450 001 9910346748603321 005 20210211 035 $a(CKB)4920000000094228 035 $a(oapen)https://directory.doabooks.org/handle/20.500.12854/47176 035 $a(oapen)doab47176 035 $a(EXLCZ)994920000000094228 100 $a20202102d2018 |y 0 101 0 $aeng 135 $aurmn|---annan 181 $ctxt$2rdacontent 182 $cc$2rdamedia 183 $acr$2rdacarrier 200 00$aExecutive Function(s): Conductor, Orchestra or Symphony? Towards a Trans-Disciplinary Unification of Theory and Practice Across Development, in Normal and Atypical Groups 210 $cFrontiers Media SA$d2018 215 $a1 online resource (245 p.) 225 1 $aFrontiers Research Topics 311 08$a2-88945-555-6 330 $aThere are several theories of executive function(s) that tend to share some theoretical overlap yet are also conceptually distinct, each bolstered by empirical data (Norman and Shallice, 1986; Shallice & Burgess, 1991; Stuss and Alexander, 2007; Burgess, Gilbert, & Dumentheil, 2007; Burgess & Shallice, 1996; Miyake et al., 2000). The notion that executive processes are supervisory, and most in demand in novel situations was an early conceptualization of executive function that has been adapted and refined over time (Norman & Shallice, 1986; Shallice, 2001; Burgess, Gilbert & Dumentheil, 2007). Presently there is general consensus that executive functions are multi-componential (Shallice, 2001), and are supervisory only in the sense that attention in one form or another is key to the co-ordination of other hierarchically organized 'lower' cognitive processes. Attention in this sense is defined as (i) independent but interrelated attentional control processes (Stuss & Alexander, 2007); (ii) automatic orientation towards stimuli in the environment or internally-driven thought (Burgess, Gilbert & Dumontheil, 2007); (iii) the automatically generated interface between tacit processes and strategic conscious thought (Barker, Andrade, Romanowski, Morton and Wasti, 2006; Morton and Barker, 2010); and (iv) distinct but interrelated executive processes that maintain, update and switch across different sources of information (Miyake et al., 2000).


One problem is that executive dysfunction or dysexecutive syndrome (Baddeley & Wilson, 1988) after brain injury typically produces a constellation of deficits across social, cognate, emotional and motivational domains that rarely map neatly onto theoretical frameworks (Barker, Andrade & Romanowski, 2004). As a consequence there is debate that conceptual theories of executive function do not always correspond well to the clinical picture (Manchester, Priestley & Jackson, 2004). Several studies have reported cases of individuals with frontal lobe pathology and impaired daily functioning despite having little detectable impairment on traditional tests of executive function (Shallice & Burgess, 1991; Eslinger & Damasio, 1985; Barker, Andrade & Romanowski, 2004; Andre?s & Van der Linden, 2002; Chevignard et al., 2000; Cripe, 1998; Fortin, Godbout & Braun, 2003). There is also some suggestion that weak ecological validity limits predictive and clinical utility of many traditional measures of executive function (Burgess et al, 2006; Lamberts, Evans & Spikman, 2010; Barker, Morton, Morrison, McGuire, 2011). Complete elimination of environmental confounds runs the risk of generating results that cannot be generalized beyond constrained circumstances of the test environment (Barker, Andrade & Romanowski, 2004). Several researchers have concluded that a new approach is needed that is mindful of the needs of the clinician yet also informed by the academic debate and progress within the discipline (McFarquhar & Barker, 2012; Burgess et al., 2006). Finally, translational issues also confound executive function research across different disciplines (psychiatry, cognitive science, and developmental psychology) and across typically developing and clinical populations (including Autism Spectrum Disorders, Head Injury and Schizophrenia - Blakemore & Choudhury, 2006; Taylor, Barker, Heavey & McHale, 2013). Consequently, there is a need for unification of executive function approaches across disciplines and populations and narrowing of the conceptual gap between theoretical positions, clinical symptoms and measurement. 517 $aExecutive Function 606 $aNeurosciences$2bicssc 610 $aassessment 610 $adefault networks 610 $adevelopment 610 $adisorders 610 $aexecutive 610 $aexercise 610 $afMRI 610 $apathology 615 7$aNeurosciences 700 $aNicholas Morton$4auth$01287673 702 $aLynne A. Barker$4auth 906 $aBOOK 912 $a9910346748603321 996 $aExecutive Function(s): Conductor, Orchestra or Symphony? Towards a Trans-Disciplinary Unification of Theory and Practice Across Development, in Normal and Atypical Groups$93020282 997 $aUNINA