Introduction 2005 2007 in press 2003 2002 2006 2003 1998 2003 2005 2006 1999 Cognition in ADHD, ODD/CD, and ADHD+ODD/CD 1997 2006 2003 2005 2002 1997 2002 1999 1996 2004 2005 1998 1997 1996 1997 1997 1995 2003 2001 2002 2002 Hot and Cool Aspects of Executive Functioning 2002 2006 Zelazo and Müller use a problem-solving framework to discuss EF. Each stage of problem-solving (problem representation, planning, execution, and evaluation) is subserved by EF, which can take both hot and cool forms. They provide examples of each for every problem solving stage. For example, for the problem representation stage cool EF could be measured by asking participants to re-represent test items in different ways (but not act upon the re-representation). Hot measures of problem representation would include most tests of Theory of Mind, where participants are required to represent something (e.g. feelings, intentions) from multiple points of view. For the planning stage, tower tasks that require children to describe their plans without actually executing them are put forward as an example of ‘cool’ EF, whilst strategic deception, where participants are shown two pre-formulated plans, one deceptive and one not, and are asked to select the one that would trick the other person, was offered as an example of ‘hot’ EF. In the execution stage, card sorting (i.e. select according to two different rules/principles) was given as an example of cool EF, and delay of gratification as an example of hot EF (e.g. choosing between a small reward immediately or a larger reward later (prudence) or between a reward for self now or a reward for self and other later (altruism)). Finally, in the evaluation phase error detection and error correction in the context of monitoring progress toward a goal are provided as examples of cool EF and error detection and correction in the context of extinction as examples of hot EF (i.e. after a certain amount of responding, it can be shown that the reward supply has been exhausted, a motivational input that might lead to response extinction). In the problem-solving framework inhibitory control is considered to underlie EF in all information processing stages and consequently has its hot and cool variants as well. Thus, when inhibitory control involves emotion, affect, and/or motivation, it may be classified as a hot EF, whereas inhibitory control could be classified as cool EF when it is required in an “abstract” or “neutral” context. Neurobiology of Prenatal Tobacco Exposure and Externalizing Behavior 2007 2007 2006 2004 2007 1993 1979 2007 2001 2004 2002 1992 2006 1A 2 1992 2006 2005 2000 2004 2006 1996 The Present Study 2002 2003 2005 2006 1999 Method Participants 2003 2005 Tasks and Measures Sustained Attention Dots Task 1999 2002a 2007 2007 Delay Frustration Task 2006 Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) 1997 1997 2001 α 2005 2001 1999 Statistical Analysis Main analyses Because the number of children participating in this study was not large and the scores on the SA-Dots Task, the Delay Frustration Task, and the behavior scales of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire were not normally distributed, we used nonparametric tests. Spearman rank order correlations were used to test whether scores on the Delay Frustration Task were related to scores on the SA-Dots Task. H Exploratory analyses U 2007 in press Results Main analyses 1 r p r p r p r p r p r p U z p U z p U z p U z p U z p 1 χ 2 p χ 2 p 2 Table 1 Mean scores (+SDs) for children with and without prenatal tobacco exposure on the strengths and difficulties questionnaire, the SA-dots task and the delay frustration task Group  N SDQ SA-Dots Delay frustration task CP HI RTae Bias NP TP NP*TP Overall 40 0.68 (1.2) 2.8 (2.5) 477.2 (507.1) 9.0 (8.9) 0.40 (.44) 162.0 (145.5) 123.2 (185.9) Not-Exposed 25 0.48 (1.2) 2.2 (2.2) 473.6 (594.1) 9.0 (10.3) 0.29 (.40) 116.9 (123.3) 78.0 (139.5) Exposed 15 1.0 (1.2) 3.9 (2.6) 483.6 (323.1) 9.1 (6.5) 0.57 (.46) 234.1 (153.0) 195.5 (229.6) SDQ CP HI SA-Dots RTae Bias NP, TP NP*TP NP TP Fig. 1 Bias RTae DF-np DF-tp DF-np*tp DF-np DF-tp SDQ-CP SDQ-HI  Fig. 2 DF-np DF-tp DF-np*tp SDQ-CP SDQ-HI  U z p U z p 1 1 χ 2 p χ 2 p 2 U z p χ 2 p 2 U z p z p χ 2 p χ 2 p Exploratory analyses p F p F p F p β p β p β p β p β β p β p Discussion Children of mothers who smoked during pregnancy exhibited problems with ‘hot’ inhibitory control, but not with ‘cool’ inhibitory control. Furthermore, children of mothers who smoked during pregnancy showed more conduct problems and hyperactivity-inattention than non-exposed children. The reliability of these effects was supported by the fact that dose–response relationships were also observed. The finding that problems particularly appear when cognitive tasks involve the regulation of affect is in line with the well-replicated association between maternal prenatal smoking and behavior regulation problems. In addition, CP+HI could account for the effects of prenatal smoking on DeFT-performance. These findings further support the contention that children of mothers who smoked during pregnancy specifically have problems when cognitive task performance involves regulation of affect. Our results indicate the importance of employing a theoretical framework supported by neuro-anatomical and neurobiological data when studying associations between maternal prenatal smoking and children’s cognitive and behavioral development. 2005 1997 2006 2002b 2005 2001 2006 2006 1994 2004 2004 2000 2000 2004 2006 1996 2006 2004 Limitations and recommendations for further studies 2001 2002 2005 2006 1999 2003 2005 2002a 2004 2003 2006 2002 2006 2005 2006 in press 1999 2007