What are executive functions?
You are halfway through an email when a notification slides in. You leave it unopened, keep hold of the point you were making, and when a colleague asks a quick question you answer it and then pick up where you left off. None of that is knowledge or a practised skill in the usual sense. It is your mind managing itself.
Psychologists call these control processes executive functions. A widely cited review describes them as what makes it possible to play with ideas in your head, think before you act, meet new and unexpected challenges, resist temptations and stay focused [1].
The three core executive functions
In an influential study, Akira Miyake and colleagues gave 137 college students a set of simple tasks, each thought to tap mainly one of three functions: shifting between mental sets, updating and monitoring information, and inhibition of dominant responses [2]. The three were moderately correlated with one another but clearly separable, which the authors called the "unity and diversity" of executive functions [2].
A 2013 review by Adele Diamond uses slightly different names for the same three core functions [1]:
- Inhibition. Self-control (resisting temptations and not acting on impulse) and interference control (keeping your attention on what matters and ignoring what does not). Leaving the notification unopened is inhibition.
- Working memory. Holding information in mind and working with it; Miyake's "updating" is closely related. Keeping hold of your email's point is working memory, covered in depth in What is working memory?
- Cognitive flexibility. Seeing things from different perspectives and adapting quickly when circumstances change, which includes switching between tasks or rules. Answering the question and returning to the email is flexibility.
How executive functions are measured
Each core function has classic laboratory tasks. They are simple on purpose, so that researchers can see how much a conflict, a moment of holding back or a change of rule costs you in time or errors. Even so, each task is thought to tap its target function predominantly, not purely [2].
Stroop: interference control
In the Stroop task, naming the ink colour of a word is slower when the word itself names a different colour [3]. Researchers use high-conflict versions of it to test and train inhibition [4].
On LaserMind's Stroop Test, each session has 24 words, half of them printed in a colour that does not match (for example, RED in blue), and you have 3 seconds to answer each one. Your main number is the interference cost: your median time on mismatching words minus matching ones, counting correct answers only. Lower means the conflict slowed you down less. Reverse mode asks for the word instead of the ink, and Arrows mode asks which way an arrow points, whichever side it appears on. The Stroop training method explains how to practise.
Go/No-Go: response inhibition
In a go/no-go task you respond quickly to most items and hold back on others. Researchers use go/no-go and the related stop-signal task to test and train inhibitory control [5].
On LaserMind's Target Watch, letters flash for a quarter of a second. In "Hold back on X" you press for every letter except X, which appears about once in every 9 letters; in "Catch the X" you press only for X. Higher levels shorten the gap between letters and add look-alike letters. Results include your false-press rate and d′, which measures how well you tell "press" letters from "hold" letters regardless of how often you press.
"Hold back on X" has the same shape as the Sustained Attention to Response Task, in which people withhold a key press for rare targets (one in nine) [6]. Its designers found that performance on that task was related to performance on other tests of sustained attention [6]. So this mode asks you to stay on task, not only to stop. The Go/No-Go method page has more.
N-back: updating
Researchers use n-back, in which you compare each item with the one N steps earlier, as a test of working-memory updating [4]. On LaserMind's N-Back, a square lights up on a 3×3 grid every 3 seconds, and you press Match when it is in the same place as N steps back. N goes up or down between blocks with your accuracy.
Task switching: shifting
When people switch between simple tasks, their responses are slower, and usually less accurate, just after a switch [7]. This switch cost shrinks when there is time to prepare, but it does not disappear [7].
On LaserMind's Switch the Rule, a digit from 1 to 9 (never 5) appears under one of two rules: ODD/EVEN or LESS/MORE than 5. The rule appears half a second before the digit. A session has 48 trials, and the rule changes on 25% or 50% of them, as you choose. Your main number is your switch cost: your median time on trials where the rule changed minus trials where it stayed the same, counting correct answers only. The Task switching method explains how to practise it.
| Function | Everyday example | Classic task | On LaserMind | Main number |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Inhibition: interference control | Ignoring a distracting word or thought | Stroop | Stroop Test | Interference cost |
| Inhibition: response inhibition | Not pressing "send" too soon | Go/No-Go | Target Watch | False presses, d′ |
| Working memory (updating) | Keeping track of the latest score | N-back | N-Back | Highest N at 80% correct |
| Cognitive flexibility (shifting) | Moving between two tasks | Task switching | Switch the Rule | Switch cost |
Can executive functions be trained?
Practice improves the practised task; on that, the studies below agree. The open questions are whether the gain spreads to similar tasks (near transfer), to the other executive functions, or to school, work and daily life (far transfer). The answers differ by age group, so we take children and adults separately.
In children
A 2019 meta-analysis pooled experiments that trained components of children's executive functions: working memory, inhibitory control or cognitive flexibility [8]. Training had a significant near-transfer effect (g = 0.44): the programmes improved the component they targeted [8]. There was no convincing evidence that training one component improved the untrained ones (g = 0.11, not significant), and the authors questioned the practical value of training specific executive skills in isolation [8].
An earlier narrative review of programmes for children aged 4 to 12 reported improvements from a wide range of activities, including computerised training, non-computerised games, aerobics, martial arts, yoga, mindfulness and school curricula [9]. The programmes that worked involved repeated practice with gradually increasing challenge, and children with weaker executive functions benefited most [9]. The authors suggested that focusing narrowly on executive functions may work less well than also supporting emotional, social and physical development [9]. That fits the later meta-analysis, in which training one skill in isolation did not reliably spread to the others.
In healthy adults
- Stroop training. In a randomised study of 102 healthy young adults, three weeks of intensive high-conflict Stroop practice improved Stroop performance, but there was neither near transfer to another inhibition task nor far transfer to switching, n-back updating or planning tasks [4].
- Go/no-go and stop-signal training. In a double-blind randomised trial of 122 healthy adults, three weeks of adaptive go/no-go and stop-signal training improved performance on those tasks, but no more than practising non-adaptive versions did, at the end of training or at a four-month follow-up [5]. The authors found no conclusive evidence of a true gain in inhibitory control [5].
- Go/no-go training in two age groups. In a study of 39 children aged 10 to 12 and 46 adults aged 18 to 24, adaptive go/no-go training improved the trained task and a similar inhibition task with different stimuli in both groups [10]. Short-lived transfer to working-memory updating and task switching appeared only in the children [10].
- Task-switching training. In a study of students, 31 practised a cued switching task for 21 days while 29 did an active control task. Practice reduced switch costs, mostly within the first four to six sessions, and gave a limited benefit on another switching task [11]. There was no benefit on tasks measuring interference control, response inhibition, working memory or general intelligence [11].
Across cognitive training more broadly, a review of several meta-analyses found minimal effects on general cognitive skills, with differences between studies explained by study quality and statistical artefacts [12].
What the research says
Try it on LaserMind
▶ Stroop ChallengeSee your own interference cost: name the ink, not the word.
Try it on LaserMind
▶ Switch the RuleMeasure how much a change of rule slows you down.
Try it on LaserMind
▶ Target Watch (Go/No-Go)Practise holding back on one letter while pressing for the rest.
What research has not established
- Most of the adult studies described here are small, ran for about three weeks and tested healthy young adults or students. Results may differ in older adults or in people with attention difficulties.
- The children's evidence mixes very different programmes and ages. The 2011 review is a narrative review, not a meta-analysis.
- The three functions overlap, and no task measures one of them purely [2]. A better score can also reflect strategy or familiarity. In one trial, most of the training gain came from faster responses, which the authors thought might mean people focused on the frequent "go" trials rather than on stopping [5]. In another, all groups improved on the transfer tasks between the first and second test, trained or not [4].
- LaserMind's exercises are practice versions of research tasks, not standardised clinical tests, and scores are compared only with your own history. If problems with attention, organisation or self-control are affecting your daily life, they can have medical or developmental causes, so talk to a doctor or another qualified professional.
Frequently asked questions
Are executive functions the same as intelligence? Not exactly. Diamond's review treats the relationship between executive functions and fluid intelligence as one of the field's open questions [1].
Do sleep and stress matter? According to Diamond's review, stress, lack of sleep, loneliness and lack of exercise each impair executive functions [1]. That is a reason to look after the basics before worrying about a single task score.
What the research says
Last evidence check 2026-10-11The Stroop task (1935) shows that naming the ink colour of a colour word is slower when the word names a different colour. Trained task [3]
Practising the Stroop task improves performance on that task; in a randomised study of healthy young adults, the gains did not carry over to another inhibition task. Trained task [4][13]
It has not been shown to raise general intelligence or everyday self-control. Other abilities [12]
In children and young adults, adaptive go/no-go training improved the trained task and a similar inhibition task with different stimuli; brief transfer to other skills appeared only in the children. Trained & similar tasks [10]
In a randomised trial of 122 healthy adults, three weeks of adaptive go/no-go and stop-signal training improved those tasks no more than practising non-adaptive versions did, giving no conclusive evidence of a real gain in inhibitory control. Trained & similar tasks [5]
A meta-analysis of studies in children found that training one executive skill (working memory, inhibition or flexibility) improved that skill, but not the other, untrained ones. Trained & similar tasks [8]
Switching between tasks costs time and accuracy even when you can prepare for the switch; that cost is what the game measures. Trained task [7]
In a small randomised study of university students, 21 days of task-switching practice reduced switching costs and helped on another switching task, but did not improve interference control, response inhibition, working memory or IQ tests. Trained & similar tasks [11]
References
- Diamond, A. (2013). Executive functions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64(1), 135–168. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143750
- Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Howerter, A., & Wager, T. D. (2000). The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex "frontal lobe" tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cognitive Psychology, 41(1), 49–100. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1999.0734
- Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18(6), 643–662. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054651
- Talanow, T., & Ettinger, U. (2018). Effects of task repetition but no transfer of inhibitory control training in healthy adults. Acta Psychologica, 187, 37–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2018.04.016
- Enge, S., Behnke, A., Fleischhauer, M., Küttler, L., Kliegel, M., & Strobel, A. (2014). No evidence for true training and transfer effects after inhibitory control training in young healthy adults. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40(4), 987–1001. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036165
- Robertson, I. H., Manly, T., Andrade, J., Baddeley, B. T., & Yiend, J. (1997). "Oops!": Performance correlates of everyday attentional failures in traumatic brain injured and normal subjects. Neuropsychologia, 35(6), 747–758. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0028-3932(97)00015-8
- Monsell, S. (2003). Task switching. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(3), 134–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00028-7
- Kassai, R., Futo, J., Demetrovics, Z., & Takacs, Z. K. (2019). A meta-analysis of the experimental evidence on the near- and far-transfer effects among children's executive function skills. Psychological Bulletin, 145(2), 165–188. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000180
- Diamond, A., & Lee, K. (2011). Interventions shown to aid executive function development in children 4 to 12 years old. Science, 333(6045), 959–964. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1204529
- Zhao, X., Chen, L., & Maes, J. H. R. (2018). Training and transfer effects of response inhibition training in children and adults. Developmental Science, 21(1), e12511. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12511
- Zhao, X., Wang, H., & Maes, J. H. R. (2020). Training and transfer effects of extensive task-switching training in students. Psychological Research, 84(2), 389–403. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-018-1059-7
- Sala, G., & Gobet, F. (2019). Cognitive training does not enhance general cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23(1), 9–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2018.10.004
- Simons, D. J., Boot, W. R., Charness, N., Gathercole, S. E., Chabris, C. F., Hambrick, D. Z., & Stine-Morrow, E. A. L. (2016). Do "brain-training" programs work? Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 17(3), 103–186. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100616661983