Advertisement

Frontiers of Medicine

, Volume 12, Issue 2, pp 164–173 | Cite as

Comparison in executive function in Chinese preterm and full-term infants at eight months

  • Yao Feng
  • Hong Zhou
  • Yan Zhang
  • Anthony Perkins
  • Yan Wang
  • Jing Sun
Research Article
  • 70 Downloads

Abstract

Executive function (EF) is increasingly recognized as being responsible for adverse developmental outcomes in preterm-born infants. Several perinatal factors may lead to poor EF development in infancy, and the deficits in EF can be identified in infants as young as eight months. A prospective cohort study was designed to study the EF in Chinese preterm infants and examine the relationship between EF in preterm infants and maternal factors during perinatal period. A total of 88 preterm infants and 88 full-term infants were followed from birth to eight months (corrected age). Cup Task and Planning Test was applied to assess the EF of infants, and the Bayley Scale of Infant Development (BSID-III) was used to evaluate cognitive (MDI) and motor abilities (PDI) of infants. In comparison with full-term infants, the preterm infants performed more poorly on all measures of EF including working memory, inhibition to prepotent responses, inhibition to distraction, and planning, and the differences remained after controlling the MDI and PDI. Anemia and selenium deficiency in mothers during pregnancy contributed to the differences in EF performance. However, maternal depression, hypertension, and diabetes during pregnancy were not related to the EF deficits in preterm infants. Future research should focus on the prevention of anemia and selenium deficiency during pregnancy and whether supplementing selenium in mothers during pregnancy can prevent further deterioration and the development of adverse outcomes of their offspring.

Keywords

executive function (EF) preterm infant working memory inhibition to prepotent response inhibition to distraction planning 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 81202216) and Beijing Higher Education Young Elite Teacher Project (No. YETP0059), People’s Republic of China. We want to thank the research teams from Peking University Third Hospital and Haidian Maternal and Child Health Hospital in Beijing for their orchestration of fieldwork and identification of the study population. We are grateful for the endeavors made by each member in our study, including Yao Feng, Hong Zhou, Yan Wang, Yan Zhang, Fang Ye, Wenxing Bai, Peng Li, Anqi Wang, Xi Wang, Peige Song, Ping Duan, Shusheng Luo, Zhenghong Ren, and Chuyun Kang (Division of Maternal and Child Health, School of Public Health, Peking University), Jing Sun (Menzies Health Institute Queensland and School of Medicine, Griffith University, Australia), Yongmei Chen, Qi Yan, Zhi Li (Haidian Maternal and Child Health Hospital in Beijing), Shan Lu and Yuan Wei (Peking University Third Hospital).

References

  1. 1.
    Blencowe H, Cousens S, Oestergaard MZ, Chou D, Moller AB, Narwal R, Adler A, Vera Garcia C, Rohde S, Say L, Lawn JE. National, regional, and worldwide estimates of preterm birth rates in the year 2010 with time trends since 1990 for selected countries: a systematic analysis and implications. Lancet 2012; 379(9832): 2162–2172CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Saigal S, Doyle LW. An overview of mortality and sequelae of preterm birth from infancy to adulthood. Lancet 2008; 371(9608): 261–269CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Doyle LW. Evaluation of neonatal intensive care for extremely-lowbirth-weight infants. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med 2006; 11(2): 139–145CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bayless S, Stevenson J. Executive functions in school-age children born very prematurely. Early Hum Dev 2007; 83(4): 247–254CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sun J, Mohay H, O’Callaghan M. A comparison of executive function in very preterm and term infants at 8 months corrected age. Early Hum Dev 2009; 85(4): 225–230CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Anderson SW, Damasio H, Tranel D, Damasio AR. Long-term sequelae of prefrontal cortex damage acquired in early childhood. Dev Neuropsychol 2000; 18(3): 281–296CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Stuss DT. Biological and psychological development of executive functions. Brain Cogn 1992; 20(1): 8–23CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Anderson V, Spencer-Smith M, Leventer R, Coleman L, Anderson P, Williams J, Greenham M, Jacobs R. Childhood brain insult: can age at insult help us predict outcome? Brain 2009; 132(1): 45–56CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Diamond A, Churchland A, Cruess L, Kirkham NZ. Early developments in the ability to understand the relation between stimulus and reward. Dev Psychol 1999; 35(6): 1507–1517CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Barkley RA. Behavioral inhibition, sustained attention, and executive functions: constructing a unifying theory of ADHD. Psychol Bull 1997; 121(1): 65–94CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    van Wassenaer AG, Westera J, van Schie PEM, Houtzager BA, Cranendonk A, de Groot L, Ganzevoort W, Wolf H, de Vries JIP. Outcome at 4.5 years of children born after expectant management of early-onset hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011;204(6):510.e1–e9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Whitehouse AJO, Robinson M, Newnham JP, Pennell CE. Do hypertensive diseases of pregnancy disrupt neurocognitive development in offspring? Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2012; 26(2): 101–108CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Robinson M, Mattes E, Oddy WH, de Klerk NH, Li J, McLean NJ, Silburn SR, Zubrick SR, Stanley FJ, Newnham JP. Hypertensive diseases of pregnancy and the development of behavioral problems in childhood and adolescence: the Western Australian Pregnancy Cohort Study. J Pediatr 2009; 154(2): 218–224.e2CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tuovinen S, Räikkönen K, Kajantie E, Henriksson M, Leskinen JT, Pesonen AK, Heinonen K, Lahti J, Pyhälä R, Alastalo H, Lahti M, Osmond C, Barker DJ, Eriksson JG. Hypertensive disorders in pregnancy and cognitive decline in the offspring up to old age. Neurology 2012; 79(15): 1578–1582CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gerner G, Baron IS. Pregnancy complications and neuropsychological outcomes: a review. Child Neuropsychol 2015; 21(3): 269–284CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Polanska K, Krol A, Sobala W, Gromadzinska J, Brodzka R, Calamandrei G, Chiarotti F, Wasowicz W, Hanke W. Selenium status during pregnancy and child psychomotor development—Polish Mother and Child Cohort study. Pediatr Res 2016; 79(6): 863–869CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zhang Q, Ananth CV, Li Z, Smulian JC. Maternal anaemia and preterm birth: a prospective cohort study. Int J Epidemiol 2009; 38(5): 1380–1389CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Freitas RG, Nogueira RJ, Antonio MA, Barros-Filho AA, Hessel G. Selenium deficiency and the effects of supplementation on preterm infants. Rev Paul Pediatr 2014; 32(1): 126–135CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schweizer U, Bräuer AU, Köhrle J, Nitsch R, Savaskan NE. Selenium and brain function: a poorly recognized liaison. Brain Res Brain Res Rev 2004; 45(3): 164–178CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Watanabe C, Satoh H. Brain selenium status and behavioral development in selenium-deficient preweanling mice. Physiol Behav 1994; 56(5): 927–932CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Willatts P. Effects of object novelty on the visual and manual exploration of infants. Infant Behav Dev 1983; 6(2-3): 145–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Willatts P. The stage-IV infant’s solution of problems requiring the use of supports. Infant Behav Dev 1984; 7(2): 125–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Willatts P. Stages in the development of intentional search by young infants. Dev Psychol 1984; 20(3): 389–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bayley N. Bayley Scale of Infant Development: Manual. 2nd ed. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation, 2006. 374Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cox JL, Holden JM, Sagovsky R. Detection of postnatal depression. Development of the 10-item Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale. Br J Psychiatry 1987; 150(6): 782–786PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lee DT, Yip SK, Chiu HF, Leung TY, Chan KP, Chau IO, Leung HC, Chung TK. Detecting postnatal depression in Chinese women. Validation of the Chinese version of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale. Br J Psychiatry 1998; 172(5): 433–437CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    World Health Organization. Haemoglobin concentrations for the diagnosis of anaemia and assessment of severity. Vitamin and Mineral Nutrition Information System. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2011Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ge K. An Overview of Nutrition Sciences. Beijing: People’s Medical Publishing House, 2004Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kiselev SY, L’Vova O A, Gliga T, Bakushkina NI, Suleimanova EV, Grishina KI, Baranov DA, Ksenofontova OL, Martirosyan SV. The assessment of neurocognitive functions in premature infants in the first year of life using Bayley Scales. Zh Nevrol Psikhiatr Im S S Korsakova 2016;116(4 Pt 2):62–67 (in Russian)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Heikura U, Hartikainen AL, Nordström T, Pouta A, Taanila A, Järvelin MR. Maternal hypertensive disorders during pregnancy and mild cognitive limitations in the offspring. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2013; 27(2): 188–198CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Koren G. Systematic review of the effects of maternal hypertension in pregnancy and antihypertensive therapies on child neurocognitive development. Reprod Toxicol 2013; 39: 1–5CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Tuovinen S, Eriksson JG, Kajantie E, Räikkönen K. Maternal hypertensive pregnancy disorders and cognitive functioning of the offspring: a systematic review. J Am Soc Hypertens 2014; 8(11): 832–847.e1CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Petrides M. Frontal lobe and working memory: evidence from investigations of the effects of cortical excisions in nonhuman primates. In: Boller F, Spinnler H, Hendler JA. Handbook of Neuropsychology. Vol. 9. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science, 1994. 59–82Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Milner B. Effects of different brain lesions on card sorting. Arch Neurol 1963; 9(1): 90–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Shallice T, Burgess PW. Deficits in strategy application following frontal lobe damage in man. Brain 1991; 114(Pt 2): 727–741CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Bastian TW, Santarriaga S, Nguyen TA, Prohaska JR, Georgieff MK, Anderson GW. Fetal and neonatal iron deficiency but not copper deficiency increases vascular complexity in the developing rat brain. Nutr Neurosci 2015;18(8): 365–375CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Mensink GBM, Fletcher R, Gurinovic M, Huybrechts I, Lafay L, Serra-Majem L, Szponar L, Tetens I, Verkaik-Kloosterman J, Baka A, Stephen AM. Mapping low intake of micronutrients across Europe. Br J Nutr 2013; 110(4): 755–773CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Gu J, Royland JE, Wiggins RC, Konat GW. Selenium is required for normal upregulation of myelin genes in differentiating oligodendrocytes. J Neurosci Res 1997; 47(6): 626–635CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Watanabe C, Satoh H. Brain selenium status and behavioral development in selenium-deficient preweanling mice. Physiol Behav 1994; 56(5): 927–932CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Yang X, Yu X, Fu H, Li L, Ren T. Different levels of prenatal zinc and selenium had different effects on neonatal neurobehavioral development. Neurotoxicology 2013; 37: 35–39CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Skröder HM, Hamadani JD, Tofail F, Persson LÅ, Vahter ME, Kippler MJ. Selenium status in pregnancy influences children’s cognitive function at 1.5 years of age. Clin Nutr 2015; 34(5): 923–930CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Rao R, de Ungria M, Sullivan D, Wu P, Wobken JD, Nelson CA, Georgieff MK. Perinatal brain iron deficiency increases the vulnerability of rat hippocampus to hypoxic ischemic insult. J Nutr 1999; 129(1): 199–206CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Collette F, Van der Linden M. Brain imaging of the central executive component of working memory. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 2002; 26(2): 105–125CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Lie CH, Specht K, Marshall JC, Fink GR. Using fMRI to decompose the neural processes underlying the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test. Neuroimage 2006; 30(3): 1038–1049CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Rothmayr C, Sodian B, Hajak G, Döhnel K, Meinhardt J, Sommer M. Common and distinct neural networks for false-belief reasoning and inhibitory control. Neuroimage 2011; 56(3): 1705–1713CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Spreng RN, Mar RA, Kim AS. The common neural basis of autobiographical memory, prospection, navigation, theory of mind, and the default mode: a quantitative meta-analysis. J Cogn Neurosci 2009; 21(3): 489–510CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Child, Adolescent and Women’s Health, School of Public HealthPeking UniversityBeijingChina
  2. 2.Menzies Health Institute QueenslandGriffith UniversityGold CoastAustralia
  3. 3.School of MedicineGriffith UniversityGold CoastAustralia

Personalised recommendations