Metacognitive Prompts Influence 7- to 9-Year-Olds' Executive Function at the Levels of Task Performance and Neural Processing

Abstract

To elucidate the role of metacognitive reflection in the development of children's executive function (EF) skills, the current study examined relations among implicit and explicit forms of metacognition in 7- to 9-year-olds during performance based on the Dimensional Change Card Sort (DCCS), while experimentally manipulating the propensity to reflect on the task. Results showed that instructions to reflect led to improved task accuracy and better metacognitive control, but only in younger children, likely because older children were already engaging in reflection. Individual differences in trait mindfulness were related to a similarly reflective mode of responding, characterized by improved task accuracy and metacognitive control. In contrast, articulatory suppression impaired children's task accuracy and metacognitive monitoring. Additionally, simply asking children to make metacognitive judgments without extra instructions decreased the amplitude of event-related potential (ERP) indices of error detection (the error-related negativity; ERN) and conflict detection (the N2). Finally, individual differences in trait anxiety were related to larger Pe amplitudes. Taken together, the current findings reinforce theoretical frameworks integrating metacognition and EF and highlight the shared influence of metacognitive reflection across multiple levels of analysis.

Keywords: ERN; N2; error-monitoring; event-related potentials; executive function; metacognition; post-error slowing; reflection.

Figure A1

Schematic depicting the timeline of a trial for the metacognitive DCCS, with MC monitoring and MC control questions that appeared every 2–5 trials in a pseudo-random order.

Figure A2

Overall internal consistency reliability across conditions for the ERN, Pe, and N2 components’ mean amplitudes. The error bars represent 95% confidence intervals from the resampling distribution. The red dotted line represents the threshold for acceptable data quality (0.60), the black solid line represents the threshold for good data quality (0.80), and the black dotted line represents the threshold for excellent data quality (0.90).

Figure A3

Averaged standardized measurement error (aSME) output across conditions for the ERN, Pe, and N2 components. The error bars represent 95% confidence intervals of the variability between individuals. Dots represent the individual participants. aSME = Analytic Standard Measurement Error.

Figure 1

(a) DCCS accuracy by experimental condition; (b) simple slopes of the interaction between reflection prompts and age based on DCCS accuracy. An asterisk (*) indicates that the slope is significantly different from zero (p < 0.05).

Figure 2

Metacognitive monitoring by experimental condition.

Figure 3

(a) Metacognitive control score by experimental condition; (b) simple slopes of the interaction between reflection prompts and age based on the metacognitive control score. An asterisk (*) indicates that the slope is significantly different from zero (p < 0.05).

Figure 4

Response-locked ERPs (ERN and Pe components) by experimental condition. Shaded areas indicate the post-response temporal regions during which the ERN (top panel) and the Pe (bottom panel) were measured. Participants in the MC Only condition displayed a significantly smaller (i.e., less negative) ERN amplitude than those in the No MC condition (β = 0.67, SE = 0.31, p = 0.03), reflecting the attenuating influence of metacognitive questions on the ERN amplitude.

Figure 5

Stimulus-locked ERPs (the N2 component) by experimental condition. Shaded areas indicate the post-response temporal regions during which the N2 was measured. Participants in the MC Only condition demonstrated significantly smaller (i.e., less negative) N2 amplitudes than children in the No MC condition (β = 0.93, SE = 0.29, p = 0.002), reflecting the attenuating influence of metacognitive questions on the N2 amplitude.