Executive Dysfunction Theory

Since the awareness of autism researchers have investigated two paradigms to explain autism; the cognitive and the psychodynamic. For the purpose of this essay I will be analysing the cognitive paradigm. The cognitive theories explains the unique elements of behaviour (Happi, Ronald & Plomin, 2006). The preponderate theories being the theory of mind, central coherence theory and executive dysfunction. These theories complement each other rather than compete and I will explore how they affect learning.
Theory of mind (ToM): In this model, autism is defined as a neurodevelopment dysfunction that causes empathy disorder which can also be called mind blindness (Baron-Cohen, 2011). People with this condition will find it difficult to put themselves
Researchers found that the results of executive function varied. Ozonoff, Pennington and Rogers (1991) found 90% of their participants with autism did worse than their controlled group whilst Pellican et al. (2006) found only 50 % showed executive difficulties. Due to the complex concept of the Executive function (EF), understanding how it may affect our practical lives might be difficult to explain especially when it is impaired which is expected to be the case with someone with ASC.It was concluded the executive dysfunction is not unique to ASC, however it is part of the theories that explains the cognitive functioning in autism (Hill, 2004). These components of four cognitive parts; planning, mental flexibility, inhibition and generativity (Barnard L, et al , 2008, Gilotty L,et al 2002, Firestone P & Dozois JA , 2007 , Hill ,
These functions generally are referred to as "supervisory" cognitive processes because they involve higher level organization and execution of complex thoughts and behaviour (ref). Although conceptualizations vary regarding what mental processes actually constitute the "executive function" construct, there has been a historical linkage of these "higher-level" processes with the frontal lobes (ref). In fact, many investigators have used the term "frontal functions" synonymously with "executive functions" despite evidence that contradicts this synonymous usage. The current review provides a critical analysis of lesion and neuroimaging studies using three popular executive function measures (Wisconsin Card Sorting Test, Phonemic Verbal Fluency, and Stroop Color Word Interference Test) in order to examine the validity of the executive function construct in terms of its relation to activation and damage to the frontal lobes. Empirical lesion data are examined via meta-analysis procedures along with formula derivatives. Results reveal mixed evidence that does not support a one-to-one relationship between executive functions and frontal lobe activity. The paper concludes with a discussion of the implications of construing the validity of these neuropsychological tests in anatomical, rather than cognitive and behavioural