Research in Developmental Disabilities 37 (2015) 216222

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Research in Developmental Disabilities

When words lead to solutions: Executive function decits

in preschool children with specic language impairment
Mara Roello a, Maria Letizia Ferretti a, Valentina Colonnello b, Gabriel Levi a,*
a
b

Department of Child Neuropsychiatry, Sapienza University of Rome, Via dei Sabelli 108, 00185 Rome, Italy
Department of Psychology, Laboratory for Biological and Personality Psychology, University of Freiburg, D-79104 Freiburg i. Br., Germany

A R T I C L E I N F O

A B S T R A C T

Article history:
Received 5 August 2014
Received in revised form 20 November 2014
Accepted 25 November 2014
Available online 18 December 2014

Several studies indicate that school-age children with specic language impairment (SLI)
have difculties with tasks that rely on executive functions. Whether executive function
decits in children with SLI emerge during preschool age remains unclear. Our aim was to
ll this gap by investigating executive function performances in two age groups of
preschoolers with and without SLI. Children with SLI (N = 60; young: 53.6  5.3 months;
old: 65.4  3.8 months) and age-matched control children (N = 58) were tested for problemrepresentation ability, using the Flexible Item Selection Task (FIST), rule-use skills, using a
Stroop-like DayNight test (D/N), and planning skills, using the Tower of London test (TOL).
Older children performed better than younger children did across tasks. Children with SLI had
poorer performance, compared to typically developing children, on measures of problem
representation, planning skills, and use of rules. Our results clearly indicate that executive
function impairment is evident during the preschool period. Although old children with SLI
performed better than young children with SLI, their performances were still poor, compared
to those of control peers. These ndings suggest that children with SLI have altered executive
functioning at 53.6 months.
2014 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Keywords:
Preschool
Language
Problem solving
Action

1. Introduction
During a childs early development, motor, language acquisition and executive functioning abilities are clearly
interdependent. For example, the age of verb acquisition and prociency in using the body to perform the corresponding
action are correlated (Maouene, Hidaka, & Smith, 2008), and early simultaneous use of speech and hand movements may be
a predictor of later language development (Iverson & Goldin-Meadow, 2005). Furthermore, children are able to bodily
produce actions related to verbs before they are able to verbally produce the linguistic labels associated to them (Levi,
Colonnello, Giacche`, Piredda, & Sogos, 2014). The progressive mastering of bodily actions plays a key role for the early
language acquisition and cognitive processes (Merleau-Ponty, 1945/1962; Piaget & Inhelder, 1966/1969; Clark, 1997;
Iverson, 2010). In childhood, the language becomes a mean for expression of actions, for reection of ones own performed
actions, and planning of future potential ones. The externally directed language is progressively internalized and used to selfdirect ones own external behavior to solve problems (Marcovitch & Zelazo, 2009).

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +39 644712203; fax: +39 64957857.

E-mail addresses: mara.roello@libero.it (M. Roello), marialetizia.ferretti@uniroma1.it (M.L. Ferretti), valentina.colonnello@psychologie.uni-freiburg.de
(V. Colonnello), gabriel.levi@uniroma1.it (G. Levi).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2014.11.017
0891-4222/ 2014 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

M. Roello et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 37 (2015) 216222

217

In this view, the study of language development and related disorders may not considered independently from other
abilities and cognitive processes. Thus, the aim of the present study is to further the understanding of relations between
language and executive functioning development during problem solving tasks in children with language disorder.
Specic language impairment (SLI) is a common developmental disorder that primarily impairs language and speech
abilities and is not related to/or caused by other developmental disorders, such as hearing loss or acquired brain injury
(Leonard, 1998). Although this disorder is designated as specic because of the absence of impairment in others aspects of
intellectual development, decits are not entirely restricted to the language domain. For example, several studies have
demonstrated that school-age children with SLI have poor performances on measures of ne and gross motor abilities (Finlay
& McPhillips, 2013; Iverson & Braddock, 2011; Zelaznik & Goffman, 2010; Hill, Bishop, & Nimmo-Smith, 1998) and
procedural memory (Lum, Conti-Ramsden, Page, & Ullman, 2012). In addition, children with language disorders show
impairment in imitation skills, kinesthetic awareness (Marton, 2009), and processing of simultaneous information (Marton
& Schwartz, 2003; Marton, Schwartz, Farkas, & Katsnelson, 2006). Recent studies indicate that school-age children with
language impairment perform poorly compared to typically developing peers on measures of mental attention, interruption,
and updating (Im-Bolter, Johnson, & Pascual-Leone, 2006). Furthermore, as Bishop and Norbury (2005a,b) have
demonstrated, children with communication impairments are more likely to have difculties during inhibition tasks.
Children with SLI also generally show poor performance in concept generation, cognitive exibility, visualspatial planning,
and in visualspatial tasks with high executive function demands (Marton, 2008), all of which have obvious detrimental
effects on the learning process.
The relations between SLI and executive functions have mainly been investigated in school-age children. However, given
the importance of detecting manifestations of difculties in early development and given the strong relation between bodily
actions, language and reasoning, the question arises whether preschool-age children with SLI show poor executive
functioning in problem solving tasks. Although language and inner speech acquisition play crucial roles in the development
of executive functions and problem solving (Fernyhough & Fradley, 2005; Vygotsky, 1987), relatively little is known about
possible impairments of executive functions in preschool children with SLI.
According to classic neuropsychological theories and recent experimental studies, childrens ability to plan, monitor, and
regulate their own behavior increases between the ages of four and seven, along with the development of self-directed
speech (Fernyhough & Fradley, 2005; Alarcon-Rubio, Sanchez-Medina, & Prieto-Garca, 2014; Luria, 1961; Luria & Yudovich,
1971). However, changes in several aspects of executive functions occur in the preschool period (Hongwanishkul, Happaney,
Lee, & Zelazo, 2005; Jacques, Zelazo, Kirkham, & Tanya, 1999; Jacques & Zelazo, 2001). Specically, children with typical
development progressively acquire representational exibility (i.e., the ability to manipulate representations) and response
control to follow rules (Zelazo, Reznick, & Spinazzola, 1998; Jacques & Zelazo, 2001). These abilities are considered
fundamental for several problem solving tasks, such as the classication of items (Piaget & Inhelder, 1966/1969), imitation,
and perspective taking tasks (Simcock & DeLoache, 2006).
In this framework, we hypothesized that alterations of executive function development in children with SLI also emerge
during the preschool period. Because problem solving is considered to be the main outcome of executive functions (Zelazo &
Frye, 1997; Zelazo & Muller, 2002), we examined whether children with a diagnosis of SLI have more difculties than do their
typically developing peers regarding problem representation, planning, and execution of plans. To better analyze early
manifestations of executive function difculties and to shed light on the developmental course such decits in children with
SLI, we contrasted the performances of two age groups.
We predicted that children with SLI would perform worse than children with typical development on all the tasks. In
addition, we predicted that both young and old children with SLI would perform worse than control children on all the tasks.
2. Methods
2.1. Participants
All children came from Italian-speaking families and were monolingual. Children in the study were placed into a
language group, SLI or control. The SLI group consisted of 60 children, while the control group consisted of 58 children with
typical development. Within each language group, children were divided into two age groups: young children (SLI-young:
24 boys, 6 girls, age: M = 53.6 months, SD = 5.3; Control-young: 11 boys, 18 girls, age: M = 53.4 months; SD = 2.7) and old
children (SLI-old: 25 boys, 5 girls, age: M = 65.4 months, SD = 3.8; Control-old: 11 boys, 18 girls, age: M = 66.1 months,
SD = 3.4).
Children with SLI were referred to the Division of Child Neuropsychiatry of University of Rome Sapienza, because of
language delay. They were included in the study after diagnosis by a specialized interdisciplinary group composed of a child
psychiatrist, a developmental rehabilitation therapist, and a psychologist.
Assessment of SLI included administration of the Rustioni test of language comprehension (Rustioni, 1994), the Peabody
receptive communication test (Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test III, Dunn & Dunn, 1997), and the Italian translations of the
Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised (WISC-R; Rubini & Padovani, 1986, Table 1). Among the inclusion criteria
for the group with SLI were impaired vocabulary comprehension and morphosyntactic production (Cipriani et al., 1993).
Exclusion criteria were rehabilitation center enrollment, a history of socio-economic deprivation, IQ < 85, and hearing
decits.

M. Roello et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 37 (2015) 216222

218

Table 1
Rustioni, Peabody, and WISC-R scale TIQ = total score, VIQ = verbal; score, PIQ = performance
score in the young and old age groups of children with SLI.
Test
Rustioni
Peabody
WISC-R
TIQ
VIQ
PIQ

Young Mean (SD)

Old Mean (SD)

70 (16.7)
80 (12.2)

70 (21.8)
79.8 (9.8)

103.7 (9.7)
96.8 (11.8)
111.6 (11.6)

101.6 (13.8)
96.9 (14.6)
110.2 (21.9)

Control children were recruited from kindergartens. According to parents reports, each had no a history of socioeconomic deprivation, no hearing loss, and had typical language, motor, cognitive, and socio-emotional development.
2.2. Procedure
All children completed the following tests.
Flexible Item Selection Task (FIST, Jacques & Zelazo, 2001): This test measures categorization and shifting abilities.
According to the problem-solving framework model (Zelazo & Frye, 1997), the FIST measures problem-representation phase
abilities. Children were shown a set of three pictures and were asked to select two pictures that matched each other in one
feature (categorization session); they were then asked to choose a different pair of pictures matching in a different feature
(shifting session). Each child received a categorization score (030) and a shifting score (015). This task uses inductive
reasoning and cognitive exibility abilities as, in each set of pictures, one of the pictures has to be selected twice, but
according to different features.
Stroop-like DayNight test (D/N; Gerstadt, Hong, & Diamond, 1994): The D/N assesses execution-phase (understanding/
following rules/action control) abilities, as it requires inhibitory control of actions in conjunction with learning and recalling
rules. In this test, children were shown a set of cards, some black, with a moon and stars, and some white, with a bright sun.
They were then instructed to say day when shown a black card and to say night when shown a white card. Each child
received a total score (016) based on the number of correct actions per trial.
Tower of London test (TOL; Krikorian, Bartok, & Gay, 1994): This test measures planning-phase abilities. The
children were presented with colored, perforated balls (green, red, and blue), which they were to place on three pegs of
graduated sizes, vertically attached to a wooden board. The test consisted of a series of problems of increasing difculty
in which children were required to move the balls from an initial state to a target state that matched the arrangement
shown in a picture presented by the experimenter. Specic rules also had to be followed: (i) move only one ball at a
time; (ii) move the ball from one peg to another, without placing the ball on the table or holding more than one ball; (iii)
place one ball on the shortest peg, two on the medium peg, and three on the tallest peg; and (iv) use only the number of
movements established by the experimenter. Thus, to solve the problem in this task, children had to not only mentally
represent the problem and inhibit their actions but also plan out several actions in advance. Each child received a score
ranging from 0 to 36.
Individual testing took place in a quiet room. All children were tested by the same experimenter. The test order was
randomized across age and language groups, and to minimize possible effects of tiredness and learning, the three tasks were
presented at 15-min intervals. Neither positive nor negative feedback was provided during the testing.
The protocol was approved by the University of Rome Sapienza review board and all parents signed a consent form.
2.3. Statistical analysis
For each task, performance was analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA), with group (SLI vs. control) and age group
(young group vs. old group) treated as between-subjects factors. For signicant interaction effects, a post hoc analysis was
performed.
3. Results
3.1. FIST test
For the categorization session, the analysis revealed a main effect of group, F(1,114) = 4, p = .048, h2p :04, indicating that
children with SLI categorized fewer cards compared to control children. A main effect of age was found, F(1,114) = 19.6,
p < .001, h2p :14, with younger children categorizing fewer cards than older children. The group  age interaction was not
signicant, F(1,114) = 2.2, p = .14, Fig. 1a.
On the shifting session, the analysis revealed a main effect of group, F(1,114) = 4, p = .046. h2p :04. Children with SLI
scored signicantly lower than control children. A main effect of age was found, F(1,114) = 25, p < .001, h2p :17, with

M. Roello et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 37 (2015) 216222

219

Fig. 1. Mean  SE of (a) scores on the FIST categorization (b) FIST shifting (c) D/N test; and (d) TOL test in young and old groups of control children and children
with SLI *p < 0.05 after post hoc comparison.

220

M. Roello et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 37 (2015) 216222

younger children scoring lower than older children. No interaction effects between group and age groups found,
F(1,114) = 1.5, p = .2, Fig. 1b.
3.2. D/N test
Four young children with SLI refused to complete the test; their data was excluded. Analysis of the remaining data
revealed a signicant main effect of group, F(1,110) = 16, p = .001, h2p :1, with control children scoring higher than children
with SLI. A main effect of age was found, F(1,110) = 4.5, p = .03, h2p :04, with old children scoring higher than young
children. The interaction between group and age was not signicant, F(1,110) = 2, p = .1, Fig. 1c.
3.3. TOL test
The data from ve young and two old children with SLI were excluded because the children refused to complete the test.
Analysis of the remaining data revealed a main effect of group, F(1,107) = 8.5, p = .004, h2p :07, indicating that children with
SLI scored signicantly lower than did the control children. There was a signicant main effect of age, F(1,107) = 47.7,
p < .001, h2p :3, with younger children scoring lower than older children. The post hoc analysis on the signicant
group  age interaction, F(1,107 ) = 8.3, p = .005, h2p :07, revealed that the difference was mainly due to the low scores of
the older children with SLI, Fig. 1d].
4. Discussion
Problem solving implies recruitment of several executive function abilities, including creating a mental representation of
the problem, planning ones actions, and executing and evaluating those actions (Zelazo & Muller, 2002). In our study,
children with SLI clearly showed less ability for problem representation and less cognitive exibility compared to their
typically developing peers, as indicated by their low scores on categorization and shifting tasks. Furthermore, children with
SLI were less able to inhibit actions, recall rules, and elaborate plans of action. Specically, difculties in abstract reasoning
and action control were already evident at 53.6 months: The young group of children with SLI scored lower than their
age-matched peers did on the FIST and D/N. Although abilities in categorization, cognitive exibility, and application of
rules improved with age in both groups of children, the performance of the children with SLI remained lower overall.
Furthermore, children with SLI had more difculties with planning at 65.4 months on the TOL task, presumably due to
limited acquisition of language abilities needed to solve complex task.
Taken together, our results are in line with classic theories and experimental evidence that link language and reasoning
development (Fuhs & Day, 2011; Bowerman & Levinson, 2001; Vygotsky, 1987). In addition, they corroborate previous
results indicating that children with SLI show impairments in executive functioning (Henry, Messer, & Nash, 2012) and
extend previous work demonstrating that executive function impairments in SLI emerge during the preschool age. Our study
also reveals that problem-solving performance improves with age in both groups, which suggests typical, but delayed,
executive functioning development in children with SLI.
Problem-solving performance has been shown to be positively associated with self-directed speech usage in typically
developing children (Alarcon-Rubio et al., 2014; Fernyhough & Fradley, 2005). Specically, children with typical
development may use the language for reective consciousness and regulation of ones own behavior on goal-directed
problem-solving tasks (Zelazo, 2004). Thus, it is possible that difculty to use the language may be at the basis of
the reduced ability to elaborate a general rule of solution (i.e., say the opposite) and to inhibit the expression of a
word semantically related to the required word in the D/N task, as well as to plan actions in the TOL task. Future
studies should specically investigate the interplay between motor and semantic problems on problem solving task
in children with SLI.
Although the present study added to the understanding of the executive function difculties in children with SLI, two
limitations should be considered. First, we cannot exclude the possibility that the unequal distribution of males and females
per group might have affected the results. In addition, given the lack of information of demographic and IQ scores in the
control group, a direct contrast between children with SLI and control children with respect to these factors was not possible.
Thus, future studies aimed at replicating the present ndings on a larger sample should take into account these factors.
Given the relation between development of motor, language and reasoning development, future studies should further
investigate whether the antecedents of executive function difculties in children with SLI may be traced back to early decits
in creating mental representations of actions. As child development theories, embodied cognition theories, and several
experimental studies suggest, the development of language and motor abilities are strongly interconnected (Levi,
Colonnello, Giacche`, Piredda, & Sogos, 2013; Glenberg & Gallese, 2012; Iverson & Braddock, 2011; Fischer & Zwaan, 2008;
Piaget & Inhelder, 1966/1969). For example, at 2 years, typically developing children are able to perform specic actions
when asked, even if they are unable to verbally produce the words representing those actions (Levi et al., 2013); however, at
3 years, children with SLI enactexpress through the bodyfewer action-related words than do typically developing
children (Levi et al., 2014). In addition, children with SLI are less able to perform several motor-related tasks than are their
typically developing peers (Iverson & Braddock, 2011; Hill et al., 1998). Thus, future longitudinal studies should trace the
development of SLI manifestation by investigating whether early difculty to enact single action-related words (i.e., verbs) at

M. Roello et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 37 (2015) 216222

221

2 years predicts later problems to enact a sequence of actions, and thus the emergence of executive function impairment,
during the 4th year.
Of note, TOL requires a sequence of actions, that is, the transformation of a current status into a potential, future status.
Thus, future studies should also extend previous studies on temporal processing in school-age children (Grondin et al., 2007)
and investigate whether, in preschool children with SLI, decits in planning abilities are associated with altered temporal
processing of the beforeafter relationship. Indeed, executive functions are future-oriented behaviors: Elaborating plans
relies on the ability to represent a sequence, a temporal organization of actions (McCormack & Hanley, 2011; Benson, 1997).
Furthermore, planning implies the ability to represent the present status while mentally modeling possible sequences of
actions for reaching a future goal. Given that time processing recruits some of the subcortical and cortical neural networks
involved in motor coordination and language processing (Schubotz et al., 2000; Macar et al., 2002), the relation between
motor development, language acquisition, timing ability, and abstract reasoning in children with SLI deserves further
investigation.
In sum, our results provide evidence that preschool children with SLI show alterations of executive functioning in all
phases of problem solving. Difculties with inhibiting interfering verbal responses could be due to a difculty in using inner
speech to mentally represent rules and inhibit behavior. Our ndings lend support to classic theories on child development
and point to possible difculties in using language as a tool for reasoning as early as preschool age in children with SLI.
Acknowledgments
We are very grateful to Dr. Sophie Jacques (Dalhousie University) for sharing the FIST test and for her insightful comments
and suggestions during the initial stages of the work. We sincerely thank the anonymous reviewer for the constructive
comments and all children and parents who participated in the study. The study was supported by a Regione Lazio grant to
G.L.
References
Alarcon-Rubio, D., Sanchez-Medina, J. A., & Prieto-Garca, J. R. (2014). Executive function and verbal self-regulation in childhood: Developmental linkages between
partially internalized private speech and cognitive exibility. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 29, 95105.
Benson, J. B. (1997). The development of planning: Its about time. In S. L. Friedman & E. K. Scholnick (Eds.), The developmental psychology of planning: Why, how, and
when do we plan? (pp. 4376). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bishop, D. V. M., & Norbury, C. F. (2005a). Executive functions in children with communication impairments, in relation to autisyic symptomatology. I:
Generativity. Autism, 9, 727.
Bishop, D. V. M., & Norbury, C. F. (2005b). Executive Functions in children with communication impairments, in relation to autisyic symptomatology. II: Response
inhibition. Autism, 9, 2943.
Bowerman, M., & Levinson, S. C. (2001). Language Acquisition and Conceptual Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cipriani, P., Chilosi, A. M., Bottari, P., & Pfanner, L. (1993). Acquisizione della morfosintassi in italiano-Fasi e processi. Padova: Padova Unipress.
Clark, A. (1997). Being there: Putting body, brain, and world together again. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. M. (1997). PPVT-III: Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test. Form IIIB.
Fernyhough, C., & Fradley, E. (2005). Private speech on an executive task: Relations with task difculty and task performance. Cognitive Development, 20, 103120.
Finlay, J., & McPhillips, M. (2013). Comorbid motor decits in a clinical sample of children with specic language impairment. Research in Developmental
Disabilities, 34, 25332542.
Fischer, M., & Zwaan, R. (2008). Embodied language: A review of the role of the motor system in language comprehension. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 61, 825850.
Fuhs, M. W., & Day, J. D. (2011). Verbal ability and executive functioning development in preschoolers at head start. Developmental Psychology, 47, 404416.
Gerstadt, C. L., Hong, Y. J., & Diamond, A. (1994). The relationship between cognition and action: Performance of children 3 1/27 years old on a Stroop-like
daylight test. Cognition, 53, 129153.
Glenberg, A. M., & Gallese, V. (2012). Action-based language: A theory of language acquisition, comprehension and production. Cortex, 48, 905922.
Grondin, S., Dionne, G., Malenfant, N., Plourde, M., Cloutier, M. E., & Jean, C. (2007). Temporal processing skills of children with and without specic language
impairment. Canadian Journal of Speech Language Pathology & Audiology, 31, 3846.
Henry, L. A., Messer, D. J., & Nash, G. (2012). Executive functioning in children with specic language impairment. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 53,
3745.
Hill, E. L., Bishop, D. V. M., & Nimmo-Smith, I. (1998). Representational gestures in developmental coordination disorder and specic language impairment:
Error-types and the reliability of ratings. Human Movement Science, 17, 655678.
Hongwanishkul, D., Happaney, K. R., Lee, W. S. C., & Zelazo, P. D. (2005). Assessment of hot and cool executive function in young children: Age-related changes and
individual differences. Developmental Neuropsychology, 28, 617643.
Im-Bolter, N., Johnson, J., & Pascual-Leone, J. (2006). Processing limitations in children with specic language impairment: The role of executive function. Child
Development, 77, 18221841.
Iverson, J. M., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2005). Gesture paves the way for language development. Psychological Science, 16, 367371.
Iverson, J. M. (2010). Developing language in a developing body: The relationship between motor development and language development. Journal of Child
Language, 37, 229261.
Iverson, J. M., & Braddock, B. A. (2011). Gesture and motor skill in relation to language in children with language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and
Hearing Research, 54, 7286.
Jacques, S., Zelazo, P. D., Kirkham, N., & Tanya, K. S. (1999). Rule selection versus rule execution in preschoolers: An error-detection approach. Developmental
Psychology, 35, 770780.
Jacques, S., & Zelazo, P. D. (2001). The Flexible Item Selection Task (FIST): A measure of executive functions in preschoolers. Developmental Neuropsychology, 20,
573591.
Krikorian, R., Bartok, J., & Gay, N. (1994). Tower of London procedure: A standard method and developmental data. Journal of Clinical and Experimental
Neuropsychology, 16, 840850.
Leonard, L. B. (1998). Children with specic language impairment. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Levi, G., Colonnello, V., Giacche`, R., Piredda, M. L., & Sogos, C. (2013). Grasping the world through words: From action to linguistic production of verbs in early
childhood. Developmental Psychobiology, 56, 510516.

222

M. Roello et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 37 (2015) 216222

Levi, G., Colonnello, V., Giacche`, R., Piredda, M. L., & Sogos, C. (2014). Building words on actions: Verb enactment and verb recognition in children with specic
language impairment. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 35, 10361041.
Lum, J. A., Conti-Ramsden, G., Page, D., & Ullman, M. T. (2012). Working, declarative and procedural memory in specic language impairment. Cortex, 48,
11381154.
Luria, A. R. (1961). The role of speech in the regulation of normal and abnormal behavior. Oxford/New York: Pergamon Press/Liveright.
Luria, A. R., & Yudovich, F. Y. (1971). Speech and the development of mental processes in the child: An experimental investigation. London: Staples Press.
Macar, F., Lejeune, H., Bonnet, M., Ferrara, A., Pouthas, V., Vidal, F., & Maquet, P. (2002). Activation of the supplementary motor area and of attentional networks
during temporal processing. Experimental Brain Research, 142, 475485.
Maouene, J., Hidaka, S., & Smith, L. B. (2008). Body parts and early-learned verbs. Cognitive Science, 32, 12001216.
Marcovitch, S., & Zelazo, P. D. (2009). A hierarchical competing systems model of the emergence and early development of executive function. Developmental
Science, 12, 118.
Marton, K., & Schwartz, R. G. (2003). Working memory capacity and language processes in children with specic language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language,
and Hearing Research, 46, 11381153.
Marton, K., Schwartz, R. G., Farkas, L., & Katsnelson, V. (2006). Effect of sentence length and complexity on working memory performance in Hungarian children
with specic language impairment (SLI): A cross-linguistic comparison. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 41, 653673.
Marton, K. (2008). Visuo-spatial processing and executive functions in children with specic language impairment. International Journal of Language and
Communicating Disorders, 43, 181200.
Marton, K. (2009). Imitation of body postures and hand movements in children with specic language impairment. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 102,
113.
McCormack, T., & Hanley, M. (2011). Childrens reasoning about the temporal order of past and future events. Cognitive Development, 26, 299314.
Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962). Phenomenology of perception. London, UK: Routledge & Kegan Paul (Original work published 1945).
Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1969). The psychology of the child. London, UK: Routledge & Kegan Paul (Original work published 1966).
Rubini, V., & Padovani, F. (1986). WISC-R Scala di intelligenza Wechsler per bambini riveduta. Florence: Organizzazioni Speciali.
Rustioni, D. (1994). Prove di valutazione delle competenze linguistiche. Florence: Organizzazioni Speciali.
Schubotz, R. I., Friederici, A. D., & Yves von Cramon, D. (2000). Time perception and motor timing: A common cortical and subcortical basis revealed by fMRI.
Neuroimage, 11, 112.
Simcock, G., & DeLoache, J. (2006). Get the picture? The effects of iconicity on toddlers reenactment from picture books. Developmental Psychology, 42, 13521357.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Thinking and speech (U. Minick, Ed. and Trans.) New York: Plenum Press.
Zelaznik, H. N., & Goffman, L. (2010). Generalized motor abilities and timing behavior in children with specic language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language,
and Hearing Research, 53, 383393.
Zelazo, P. D., & Frye, D. (1997). Cognitive complexity and control: A theory of the development of deliberate reasoning and intentional action. In M. Stamenov (Ed.),
Language structure, discourse, and the access to consciousness (pp. 113153). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamin.
Zelazo, P. D., Reznick, J. S., & Spinazzola, J. (1998). Representational exibility and response control in a multistep multilocation search task. Developmental
Psychology, 34, 203214.
Zelazo, P. D., & Muller, U. (2002). Executive functions in typical and atypical development. In U. Goswami (Ed.), Handbook of childhood cognitive development
(pp. 445469). Oxford: Blackwell.
Zelazo, P. D. (2004). The development of conscious control in childhood. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 1217.