Theoretical and genetic correlations between language and movement


Authors
Pub.Info
Article Navigation
DOI
Abstract
Pub.Info

Submission Date: 2020-06-09
Review Date: 2020-06-23
Pubblication Date: 2020-06-30
Printed on:

Abstract

Abstract:

The work presented aims to highlight the correlation existing between movement and language, integrating it with all the connections and brain functions involved in the two competences. Numerous studies highlight the relationship between language and movement and how they affect linguistic and sensorimotor cognitive maturation. Motor action is a complex coordination of planning, organization and monitoring; there appears to be an intuitive connection with executive functions (FE), although the exact definition is widely disputed.
The idea that there is a relationship between movement and higher cognitive functions, such as FE and language, also derives in part from theoretical perspectives such as the theory of embedded cognition. From the neurobiological point of view, this notion implies that the understanding of language is based, at least in part, on the neural systems of perception and action. FOXP2 is presumed to have played a role in evolution, due to its peculiarities of shaping the craniofacial bones, bone cartilages and participation in brain structure, having importance on the evolutionary changes of the cartilages and bones involved in the production of language and movement, promoting their evolution and reinforcing them.
It is hoped that, based on the various considerations and question marks that have arisen, a study can be carried out that investigates the role of the Foxp2 gene in subjects with speech disorders and premature at birth, aiming to identify the predictive factors and the language disorder. that of movement, trying to clarify the dark points of their correlation.

Introduction

The work presented aims to highlight the correlation existing between movement and language, integrating it with all the connections and brain functions involved in the two competences.

Several studies highlight the relationship between language and movement and how they affect linguistic and sensorimotor cognitive maturation. During the development, children become increasingly skillful at controlling their motor actions (Hamilton, Southgate, & Hill, 2016). Motor action is a complex coordination of planning, organization and monitoring; there appears to be an intuitive connection with executive functions (FE), although the exact definition is widely disputed. Many researchers would agree that FE are responsible for a series of higher-order cognitive processes, such as inhibition and working memory, tools that support motor and language control (Carlson , Faja, and Beck, 2016). The ability to communicate through language is a developmental skill to be taken into account when exploring the relationship between motor action and FE. In fact, the language supports the control of the action, i.e. it describes the action and evaluate the action performed, arranging for the planning of future actions (Kray, Eenshuistra, Kerstner, Weidema, and Hommel 2006). During early childhood, children acquire fundamental movement skills, which the most complex motor skills necessary for daily life actions are formed upon (Gabbard, 2008; Piek, Le Mani e Licari 2012).

A further study concerns the dynamics between movement-language-environment to highlight how the relationships between them are interconnected in the human body. Some authors believe that children’s ability to move has important implications to their cognitive and social development (Diamante, 2007). The maturation of motor control provides children with new opportunities to get to know the surrounding environment, both for the objects and for the individuals around him (Adolph & Joh, 2007; Von Hofsten 2009). Being able to act in the surrounding environment allows children to acquire new knowledge that will influence and trigger the changes of the various perceptual and motor systems (Von Hofsten, 2009).

Matherials and methods

The idea that there is a relationship between movement and higher cognitive functions, such as FE and language, also derives in part from theoretical perspectives such as the theory of embedded cognition.

This theory does not represent a compact theoretical front, but it rather consists of multiple approaches, sometimes even very different from each other. This makes it difficult to identifyunique defining characteristics, leaving blurred boundaries between the various proposals that pertain to the theory of embedded cognition and those that instead refer to the classical cognitive paradigm. It is possible to identify at least two general assumptions which the theories of embedded cognition seem to converge to. With regard to the role of corporeality in cognition, there are at least two different approaches: the epistemic approach and the constitutive approach.

Epistemic approach

The epistemic thesis can be summarized as follows: it is impossible to outline a science of cognitive processes without understanding the structures of the body in which these processes are carried out [Rowlands, 2010, Shapiro, 2011]. According to the epistemic approach, any attempt to understand the information involved in cognitive processing must take into consideration the causal role of the morphological and dynamic properties of the body. The epistemic thesis merely focuses on the functional role of body properties in defining sensitive inputs, thereby denying the possibility of describing the cognition on the basis of merely arbitrary symbolic processing forms. This does not mean questioning the computational and representative nature of cognitive processes, but rather prefiguring an indissoluble correlation with the characteristics of the body in which the processes are carried out. The mere adoption of an epistemic approach does not seem to be able to generate a concrete break to the assumptions of classical cognitivism, it is rather limitedby focusing on bodily constraints to defining the information available to the system. It is actually necessary to adopt a constitutive approach to achieve a more radical divergence.

Constitutive approach

According to the constitutive thesis, the cognitive processes are not limited to the operations instantiated within the cognitive system, butthey includewider body structures and processes ofinteraction with the environment [Lakoff & Johnson, 1999; Noë, 2004; Clark, 2008; Chemero, 2009].Ultimately the main difference between epistemic and constitutive approaches concerns the boundaries of what we refer as cognition. (ZipoliCaianiSilvano.APhEx 8, 2013. ed. Vera Tripodi)

In literature, there are several evidences that underline the relationship between language and sensor-motor processing in the so-called embedded cognition. This approach argues that simulation and sensor-motor playing during language processing are necessary for a proper understanding. By the neurobiological point of view, this notion implies that the understanding of language is based, at least partially, upon the neural systems of perception and action (Barsalou, 2008; Fischer &Zwaan, 2008; Glenberg&Gallese, 2012; Pulvermüller, 2005; de Vega, Glenberg, and Graesser 2008) [Fig.1]. Such point of view is proved by studies where by motor activity associated with language,describing an action,is investigated. In an article, Glenberg and Kaschak (2002) reported that the processing time of the sentences, which contain actions, is modulated by the preparation or an internal simulation of a movement corresponding, or not, to the action described in the sentence. Aravena et coll. (2010) found out that, through the evoked potentials, the incompatibility between a hand movement and the action depicted in a sentence increases significantlythe cerebral response, in the central-parietal area (Kutas&Federmeier 2011).

Fig. 1Brain areas and executive functions

A similar model was also found in studies looking for the effects of compatibility between movement and understanding of language. This study highlighted an increase of the evoked potentials when participants were reading sentences which contained two simultaneous manual actions, which could not be performed at one time (Santana & de Vega 2013). This type of data allows us to assume the existence of some common functional active substrates, both for semantic language processing and for motor control. To supporting what has been said, neuroimaging studies have reported the activation of brain regions triggered both by movement and by the use of words containing movement actions. Other studies have highlighted the activation of the fronto-parietal area between the motor and premotor cortex [Fig. 2], as a function of the verbs that contained action, compared to nouns that referred to objects (Pulvermu¨ller 1996, 2005). Furthermore, the verbs representing actions, allowed the processing associated to different parts of the body and the activation of the cortexin somatotopic regions, which partially overlapped to those specifically involved in the execution of these actions (Hauk &Pulvermu¨ ller, 2004; Pulvermu ¨ller, Hauk, Nikulin, and Ilmoniemi 2005). The somatotopia is evident in response to the phrases that describe actions and a strong activation of the fronto-parietal network has instead been reportedwith regards to sentences of abstract contents (Aziz-Zadeh, Wilson, Rizzolatti, and Iacoboni, 2006; de Vegaet in 2014 .; Tettamanti et al., 2005).

Fig. 2 – Where are the executive functions ?

In this perspective, it is also possible to represent the importance of another property of language: syntax, which studies the rules establishing the place occupied by each word within a sentence. Syntax assumes motion control and its main function is to combine linguistic components to produce a communicative goal, therefore the syntax uses motion action control to produce word control (Glenberg and Gallese 2012). Actually, it is well known that Broca’s area is functionally involved in both syntax and sensor-motor systems (Clerget, Winderickx, Fadiga, & Olivier, 2009; Friederici, Bahlmann, Friedrich, and Makuuchi, 2011; Moro, 2014; Pulvermu ¨ ller&Fadiga 2010). Up to date, the empirical research on embedded language has focused mainly on the semantic domain, i.e. how the processing of the meaning of words, concerning actions (nouns and verbs), both presented on their own and included in sentences, was recruited by our sensorimotor systems.

Neuroimaging studies have shown that the activity of the listener’s motor system is shaped by the verbal description of actions and in the absence of any performed or imagined action (Boulenger, Hauk, &Pulvermu¨ ller, 2009; Buccino et al., 2005; Hauk, Davis, Ford, Pulvermu¨ ller, &Marslen-Wilson 2006; Hauk, Johnsrude, and Pulvermu¨ ller, 2004; Hauk, Shtyrov, &Pulvermu¨ ller, 2008; Pulvermu¨ ller, Shtyrov, &Ilmoniemi, 2005; Tettamanti et al. , 2005).

Brain areas associated with FE, such as: the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and the brain areas necessary for the design and execution of movements, are coactivated during the execution of specific actions (Diamante, 2000). Furthermore, it has been shown that the areas of the brain involved in linguistic functions (for example, Broca’s) are also activated during FE activities (Gerton et al., 2004) and the performance of motor tasks, such as, for example, action planning, action observation, understanding of actions, imitation; (Nishitani, Schürmann, Amunts, and Hari 2005) and activation of motor areas was observed during tongue articulation activities (e.g., Casado et al., 2018; Pulvermüller 2005; Willems &Hagoort 2007). [Figure 3]

Nonetheless, behavioral studies observing direct links between development domains have not delivered definitive results. Furthermore, although studies have reported that children with motor coordination difficulties, including children diagnosed with Generalized Coordination Development Disorder (DCD), have clear difficulties in FE (Leonard & Hill, 2015; Wilson, Ruddock, Smits -Engelsman, Polatajko, and Blank, 2013), research has also shown that the commonly assumed link between motor coordination difficulties and FE dysfunction is not always present (Molitor, Michel, and Schneider 2015). Likewise, the latest studies have shown growing empirical evidence, which has highlighted a link between the performance of movement and speech, in children with standard development during the first 3 years of life (Walle, and Campos 2015; Libertus&Violi 2016; Walle& Campos 2014), whose relationship seems to weaken or disappear according to the age (Libertus&Hauf 2017; Oudgenoeg-Paz et al., 2016). Although it has been proven that in children with developmental disorders there is a relatively high correlation rate between motor difficulties and language problems, it is also true that not all children with motor difficulties have language problems. Regarding the relationship between verbal ability and FE, some studies have shown that children with standard development have verbal skills in relation to FE and that children with speech disorder have low scores on FE performance ( Fuhs& Day 2011; Gooch, Thompson, Nash, Snowling, and Hulme, 2016; Kaushanskaya, Parco, Gangopadhyay, Davidson, and Weismer 2017; see Müller, Jacques, Brocki&Zelazo 2009). Overall, the studies are inconclusive about the exact extent of relationships between development domains, probably due to both the differences between children and the different measures used to evaluate children movements, FE and verbal skills (Leonard & Hill, 2015; Libertus&Hauf 2017).

Fig. 3 – Illustration of human brain functions

Several studies have correlated fundamental human traits, namely language and movement, which are associated with each other by a series of craniofacial adaptations and skeletal muscle remodeling. However, it is not clear how these morphological features arose during the evolution of men. [Figure4]

A factor that could have played a fundamental role in the birth of language and movement is the FOXP2 gene. FOXP2 is presumed to have played a role in evolution, due to its peculiarities of shaping the craniofacial bones, bone cartilages and participation in brain structure, having importance on the evolutionary changes of the cartilages and bones involved in the production of language and movement, promoting their evolution and reinforcing them. Changes in the morphology of the vocal tract may have played a role in the birth of the human voice.

This gene is implicated in a rare disease involving apraxia and speech difficulties. In a study, by the analysis of the skeleton of a mice, the FOXP2 genes in the skull, in the skeletal area and in the geometry of the vocal-tract were identified, including the sphenoid and the laryngeal cartilage and it is deduced that Foxp2 could help establish the anatomical substrates utilized for voice communication. The results indicate that Foxp2 performs apleitropic influence and helps regulate the strength, length of the hind limbs, helps supporting the articular cartilage of the knees and the intervertebral discs. [Figure 5] Studies in people with FOXP2 variation have reported difficulty feeding and coughing, this could plausibly relate to changes in the laryngeal cartilage due to the variation of the gene. In light of the known roles of Foxp2 in brain circuits, the studies suggest that this gene could contribute to the coevolution of neural and anatomical adaptations related to language and motor activity. The emergence of human language has caused not only neural, but also anatomical changes in the vocal tract, including the configuration of the vocal cords, the trachea and the oral cavity. However, this new discovery of the FoxP2 gene could give further answers to all scholars seeking correlations between movement and language.

Fig. 4 – The evolution of the human brain
Fig. 5 – Comparative images: deletion of the FOXP2 gene with consequent morphological changes of the structures concerned
Fig. 5a – Photos of the different sizes of the skull structure of mice
Fig. 5b – Photos of the different sizes of vocal tract and hind limbs of mice

Conclusions

Based on the emerged results, the correlations between movement and language are increasingly evident, thanks also to the discovery of the FOXP2 gene and the probable interconnections that it creates between verbal and motor skills. This discovery highlighted the importance of the gene in the formation of fundamental structures for human evolution and how it regulates movement and language, which are the cornerstones of human development.

It is hoped that, based on the various considerations and question marks that have arisen, a study can be carried out that investigates the role of the Foxp2 gene in subjects with speech disorders and premature birth, aiming to identify the predictive factors both of the language and movementdisorders, trying to clarify the dark points of their correlation.

References

  1. Abe, M., &Hanakawa, T. (2009). Functional coupling underlying motor and cognitive functions of the dorsal premotor cortex. Behavioural Brain Research, 198, 13–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2008.10.046
  2. Adolfo M. Garcı´aa,b,c,* and Agustı´nIba~nez, When embodiment breaks down: Language deficits as novel avenues into movement disorders, ScienceDirect, (2 0 1 8 ) 1 e7.
  3. Adolph, K. E., & Joh, A. S. (2007). Motor development: How infants get into the act. In A. Slater & M. Lewis (Eds.), Introduction to infant development (2nd ed.,pp. 63–80). New York: Oxford University Press.
  4. Alloway, T. P., Gathercole, S. E., & Pickering, S. J. (2006). Verbal and visuospatial short-term and working memory in children: Are they separable? Child Development,77, 1698–1716. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00968.x.
  5. Alloway, T. P. (2007). Working memory, reading, and mathematical skills in children with developmental coordination disorder. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 96, 20–36..
  6. Alloway, T. P., Rajendran, G., & Archibald, L. M. (2009). Working memory in children with developmental disorders. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 372–382.http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022219409335214.
  7. Amoruso, L., Gelormini, C., Aboitiz, F., Alvarez Gonzalez, M.,Manes, F., Cardona, J. F., et al. (2013). N400 ERPs for actions: Building meaning in context. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7,57.
  8. Amoruso, L., Sede~no, L., Huepe, D., Tomio, A., Kamienkowski, J., Hurtado, E., et al. (2014). Time to tango: Expertise and contextual anticipation during action observation. Neuroimage, 98, 366e385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.05.005.
  9. Arán-Filippetti, V., &Richaud de Minzi, M. C. (2012). A structural analysis of executive functions and socioeconomic status in school-age children: Cognitivefactors as effect mediators. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 173, 393–416.
  10. Aravena, P., Hurtado, E., Riveros, R., Cardona, J. F., Manes, F., &Iba~nez, A. (2010). Applauding with Closed Hands: Neural signature of action-sentence compatibility effects. PLoS One, 5(7), e11751. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0011751.
  11. Ardila, A., Rosselli, M., Matute, E., &Guajardo, S. (2005). The Influence of the parents’ educational level on the development of executive functions.Developmental Neuropsychology, 28, 539–560. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15326942dn2801_5.
  12. Ardila, A. (2012). Interaction between lexical and grammatical language systems in the brain. Physics of Life Reviews, 9, 198–214. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2012.05.001.
  13. Aziz-Zadeh, L., Wilson, S. M., Rizzolatti, G., &Iacoboni, M. (2006).Congruent embodied representations for visually presented actions and linguistic phrases describing actions. CurrentBiology, 16(18), 1818e1823.
  14. Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptions of perceptual symbols. Behavioral and brain sciences, 22, 637–660.
  15. Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617e645.
  16. Bak, T. H., &Chandran, S. (2012). What wires together dies together: Verbs, actions and neurodegeneration in motor neuron disease. Cortex, 48(7), 936e944. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2011.07.008
  17. Bernardi, M., Leonard, H. C., Hill, E. L., & Henry, L. A. (2016). Brief report: Response inhibition and processing speed in children with motor difficulties anddevelopmental coordination disorder. Child Neuropsychology, 22, 627–634.
  18. Begg, C. B., & Gray, R. (1984). Calculations of polychotomous logistic regression parameters using individualized regression. Biometrika, 71, 11–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2336391.
  19. Ben-Sasson, A., & Gill, S. V. (2014). Motor and language abilities from early to late toddlerhood: Using formalized assessments to capture continuity and discontinuityin development. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 35, 1425–1432. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2014.03.036.
  20. Bergman, L. R., & Magnusson, D. M. (1997). A person-oriented approach in research on developmental psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 9, 291–319.http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S095457949700206X.
  21. Best, J. R., & Miller, P. H. (2010). A developmental perspective on executive function. Child Development, 81, 1641–1660. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01499.x.
  22. Bierman, K. L., Nix, R. L., Greenberg, M. T., Blair, C., &Domitrovich, C. E. (2008). Executive functions and school readiness intervention: Impact, moderation, andmediation in the Head Start REDI program. Development and Psychopathology, 20, 821–843.
  23. Bierman, K. L., Torres, M. M., Domitrovich, C. E., Welsh, J. A., & Gest, S. D. (2009). Behavioral and cognitive readiness for school: Cross-domain associations forchildren attending Head Start. Social Development, 18, 305–323. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2008.00490.x.
  24. Blair, C., & Razza, R. P. (2007). Relating effortful control, executive function, and false belief understanding to emerging math and literacy ability in kindergarten.Child Development, 78, 647–663. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01019.x.
  25. Blank, R., Smits-Engelsman, B., Polatajko, H., & Wilson, P. (2012). European Academy for Childhood Disability (EACD): Recommendations on the definition, diagnosis and intervention of developmental coordination disorder (long version). Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 54, 54–93.
  26. Bull, R., Espy, K. A., & Wiebe, S. A. (2008). Short-term memory, working memory, and executive functioning in preschoolers: Longitudinal predictors of mathematicalachievement at age 7 years. Developmental Neuropsychology, 33, 205–228. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/87565640801982312.
  27. .Bramble DM, Lieberman DE (2004) Endurance running and the evolution of Homo.Nature 432:345–352.
  28. Brown-Lum, M., & Zwicker, J. G. (2015). Brain imaging increases our understanding of developmental coordination disorder: A review of literature andfuture directions. CurrentDevelopmentalDisorders Reports, 2, 131–140.
  29. Buccino, G., Riggio, L., Melli, G., Binkofski, F., Gallese, V., &Rizzolatti, G. (2005). Listening to action-related sentencesmodulates the activity of the motor system: A combined TMSand behavioral study. Cognitive Brain Research, 24(3), 355e363.
  30. Cameron, C. E., Brock, L. L., Murrah, W. M., Bell, L. H., Worzalla, S. L., Grissmer, D., & Morrison, F. J. (2012). Fine motor skills and executive function both contributeto kindergarten achievement. Child Development, 83, 1229–1244. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01768.x.
  31. Campbell, S. B., Denham, S. A., Howarth, G. Z., Jones, S. M., Whittaker, J. V., Williford, A. P., & Darling-Churchill, K. (2016). Commentary on the review of measures of early childhood social and emotional development: Conceptualization, critique, and recommendations. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 45, 19–41.
  32. Campos, J. J., Anderson, D. I., Barbu-Roth, M. A., Hubbard, E. M., Hertenstein, M. J., & Witherington, D. (2000). Travel broadens the mind. Infancy, 1, 149–219. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327078IN0102_1.
  33. Casado, P., Martı´n-Loeches, M., Leon, I., Hernandez-Gutierrez, D.,Espuny, J., Mu~noz, F., et al. (2018). When syntax meets action: Brain potential evidence of overlapping between language and motor sequencing. Cortex, 100, 40e51.
  34. Cardona, J. F., Gershanik, O., Gelormini-Lezama, C., Houck, A. L., Cardona, S., Kargieman, L., et al. (2013). Action verb processing in Parkinson’s disease: New pathways for motorlanguage coupling. Brain Structure & Function, 218(6),1355e1373. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00429-013-0510-1.
  35. Cardona, J., Kargieman, L., Sinay, V., Gershanik, O., Gelormini, C., Amoruso, L., et al. (2014). How embodied isaction language? Neurological evidence from motor diseases. Cognition, 131(2), 311e322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.02.001.
  36. Carlson, S. M., Faja, S., & Beck, D. M. (2016). Incorporating early development into the measurement of executive function: The need for a continuum of measuresacross development. In J. A. Griffin, P. McCardle, & L. S. Freund (Eds.). Executive function in preschool-age children: Integrating measurement, neurodevelopment, andtranslational research (pp. 45–64). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association.
  37. Casado, P., Martín-Loeches, M., León, I., Hernández-Gutiérrez, D., Espuny, J., Muñoz, F., & de Vega, M. (2018). When syntax meets action: Brain potential evidence ofoverlapping between language and motor sequencing. Cortex, 100, 40–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2017.11.002.
  38. Chasiotis, A., Kiessling, F., Hofer, J., & Campos, D. (2006). Theory of mind and inhibitory control in three cultures: Conflict inhibition predicts false belief understandingin Germany, Costa Rica and Cameroon. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 30, 249–260. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0165025406066759.
  39. Chang, Y.-K., Tsai, Y.-J., Chen, T.-T., & Hung, T.-M. (2013). The impacts of coordinative exercise on executive function in kindergarten children: An ERP study. Experimental Brain Research, 225, 187–196.
  40. Chen, I. C., Tsai, P. L., Hsu, Y. W., Ma, H. I., & Lai, H. A. (2013). Everyday memory in children with developmental coordination disorder. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 34, 687–694.
  41. Clark, A. (2008). Supersizing the mind: Action, embodiment, and cognitive extension. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  42. Croft, S., Stride, C., Maughan, B., & Rowe, R. (2015). Validity of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire in preschool-aged children. Pediatrics, 135, e1210–e1219.
  43. Diamond, A., & Taylor, C. (1996). Development of an aspect of executive control: Development of the abilities to remember what I said and to Do as I say, not as I do.Developmental Psychobiology, 29, 315–334 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2302(199605)29:4<315:AID-DEV2>3.0. CO;2-T.
  44. Diamond, A. (2000). Close interrelation of motor development and cognitive development and of the cerebellum and prefrontal cortex. Child Development,71, 44–56–56.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00117.
  45. Diamond, A. (2007). Interrelated and interdependent. Developmental Science, 10, 152–158.
  46. Diamond, A., & Lee, K. (2011). Interventions shown to aid executive function development in children 4 to 12 years old. Science, 333, 959–964. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1204529).
  47. Diamond, A. (2013). Executive functions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 135–168.
  48. de Vega, M., Leon, I., Hernandez, J. A., Valdes, M., Padron, I., &Ferstl, E. C. (2014). Action sentences activate sensory motor regions in the brain independently of their status of reality. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 26(7), 1363e1376. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00559.
  49. de Vega, M., Moreno, V., & Castillo, D. (2013). The comprehension of action-related sentences may cause interference rather than facilitation on matching actions. Psychological Research, 77(1), 20e30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-011-0356-1.
  50. Deriziotis P, Fisher SE (2017) Speech and language: Translating the genome. TrendsGenet 33:642–656.
  51. Doi, Y., Ishihara, K., &Uchiyama, M. (2014). Reliability of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire in Japanese preschool children aged 4–6 years. Journalof Epidemiology, 24, 514–518.
  52. Dyck, M. J., Piek, J. P., Hay, D., Smith, L., &Hallmayer, J. (2006). Are abilities abnormally interdependent in children with autism? Journal of Clinical Child andAdolescent Psychology, 35, 20–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15374424jccp3501_3.
  53. Ellinoudis, T., Evaggelinou, C., Kourtessis, T., Konstantinidou, Z., Venetsanou, F., &Kambas, A. (2011). Reliability and validity of age band 1 of the movementassessment battery for children-second edition. Research in DevelopmentalDisabilities, 32, 1046–1051.
  54. Ezpeleta, L., Granero, R., Penelo, E., de la Osa, N., &Domènech, J. M. (2015). Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Functioning-Preschool (BRIEF-P) appliedto teachers. Psychometric properties and usefulness for disruptive disorders in 3-year-old preschoolers. Journal of Attention Disorders, 19, 476–488.
  55. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., &Lang, A. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G⁄Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. BehaviorResearch Methods, 41, 1149–1160.
  56. Fiebach, C. J., &Schubotz, R. I. (2006). Dynamic anticipatory processing of hierarchical sequential events: A common role for Broca’s area and ventral premotor cortex across -domains? Cortex, 42(4), 499e502.
  57. Fischer, M. H., & Zwaan, R. A. (2008). Embodied language: A review of the role of the motor system in languagecomprehension. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychololgy, 61(6), 825e850. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210701623605.
  58. Fischer, M. H., & Zwaan, R. A. (2008). Embodied language: A review of the role of the motor system in languagecomprehension. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychololgy, 61(6), 825e850. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210701623605.
  59. Fisher SE, Scharff C (2009) FOXP2 as a molecular window into speech and language.Trends Genet 25:166–177.
  60. Fitch WT (2000) The evolution of speech: A comparative review. Trends CognSci 4:258–267.
  61. Friederici, A., Anwander, A., Heim, S., Schubotz, R. I., &Bahlmann, J. (2006). The brain differentiates human and nonhuman grammars: Functional localization and structural connectivity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 103, 2458e2463.
  62. Friederici, A. D., &Weissenborn, J. (2007). Mapping sentence form onto meaning: The syntax-semantic interface. Brain Research, 1146, 50e58.
  63. Gabbard, C. P. (2008). Lifelong motor development (5th ed). San Francisco: Pearson.
  64. Galbusera Laura e FuchsThomas , Comprensione incarnata: Alla riscoperta delcorpo dalle scienze cognitive alla psicoterapia. In-Mind Italia V 1–6.http://it.in-mind.orgISSN 2240-2454
  65. Gallese, V., &Lakoff, G. (2005). The brain’s concepts: The role of the sensory-motor system in conceptual knowledge. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 22(3), 455e479. https://doi.org/10.1080/02643290442000310.
  66. Garcı´a, A., &Iba~nez, A. (2016). A touch with words: Dynamic synergies between manual actions and language. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 68, 59e95.
  67. Garon, N. M., Piccinin, C., & Smith, I. M. (2016). Does the BRIEF-P predict specific executive function components in preschoolers? Applied Neuropsychology: Child, 5, 110–118.
  68. Geuze, R. H., Schoemaker, M. M., & Smits-Engelsman, B. C. (2015). Clinical and research criteria for developmental coordination disorder—should they beone and the same? Current Developmental Disorders Reports, 2, 127–130.
  69. Geytenbeek, J. J., Heim, M. J., Knol, D. L., Vermeulen, R. J., &Oostrom, K. J. (2015). Spoken language comprehension of phrases, simple and compound-active sentences in nonspeaking children with severe cerebral palsy. International.
  70. Ghazanfar AA, Rendall D (2008) Evolution of human vocal production. CurrBiol 18: R457–R460.
  71. Gianelli, C., Marzocchi, M., & Borghi, A. M. (2017). Grasping the agent’s perspective: A kinematics investigation of linguistic perspective in Italian and German. Frontiers in Psychology, 8.
  72. Gianelli C., Discussion forum, Embodied language and perspective taking in light of movement disorders, ScienceDirect.
  73. Gibbs, R. W. Jr., (2005). Embodiment and cognitive science. Cambridge University Press.
  74. Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  75. Gioia, G. A., Espy, K. A., &Isquith, P. K. (2005). The behavior rating inventory of executive function-preschool version (BRIEF–P). Odessa, FL: PsychologicalAssessment Resources.
  76. Gioia, G. A., Isquith, P. K., Guy, S. C., & Kenworthy, L. (2000). Behavior rating inventory of executive function. Child Neuropsychology, 6, 235–238. http://dx.doi.org/10.1076/chin.6.3.235.3152.
  77. Glenberg, A. M., &Gallese, V. (2012). Action-based language: A theory of language acquisition, comprehension, and production. Cortex, 48, 905e922.
  78. Goodman, R. (1997). The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: A research note. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 38, 581–586. Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 50(4), 499e515. https://doi.org/10.1111/1460-6984.12151.
  79. Groszer M, et al. (2008) Impaired synaptic plasticity and motor learning in mice with apoint mutation implicated in human speech deficits. Curr Biol 18:354–362.
  80. Haesler S, et al. (2007) Incomplete and inaccurate vocal imitation after knockdown ofFoxP2 in songbird basal ganglia nucleus area X. PLoS Biol 5:e321.
  81. Hauser, M., Chomsky, N., & Fitch, T. (2002). The faculty oflanguage: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve. Science,198, 1569e1579.
  82. Hauk, O., Shtyrov, Y., &Pulvermu¨ ller, F. (2008). The time course ofaction and action-word comprehension in the human brain asrevealed by neurophysiology. Journal of Physiology Paris, 102,50e58.Physiology – Parigi, 102, 95-100 .
  83. Hanakawa, T. (2011). Rostral premotor cortex as a gateway between motor and cognitive networks. Neuroscience Research, 70, 144–154. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neures.2011.02.010.
  84. HeidlmayrKarin,DoreÂ-MazarsKarine, Aparicio Xavier, Isel Frederic. Multiple Language Use InfluencesOculomotor Task Performance:Neurophysiological Evidence of a SharedSubstrate between Language and MotorControl. PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0165029 November 10, 2016.
  85. Hellendoorn, A., Wijnroks, L., van Daalen, E., Dietz, C., Buitelaar, J. K., &Leseman, P. (2015). Motor functioning, exploration, visuospatial cognition andlanguage development in preschool children with autism. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 39, 32–42.
  86. Henderson, S. E., Sugden, D. A., Barnett, A. L., & Smits-Engelsman, B. C. M. (2010). Movement Assessment Battery for Children (2nd ed.). Amsterdam, TheNetherlands: Pearson Assessment and Information [Dutch translation].
  87. Hill, E. L. (2001). Non-specific nature of specific language impairment: A review of the literature with regard to concomitant motor impairments. International Journalof Language & Communication Disorders, 36, 149–171.
  88. Hosmer, D. W., Lemeshow, S., &Klar, J. (1988). Goodness-of-fit testing for multiple logistic regression analysis when the estimated probabilities are small. BiometricalJournal, 30, 911–924. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bimj.4710300805.
  89. Hoff, E., Laursen, B., & Bridges, K. (2012). Measurement and model building in studying the influence of socioeconomic status on child development. In M.Lewis& L. Mayes (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of environment in human development. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
  90. Howard, S. J., Okely, A. D., & Ellis, Y. G. (2015). Evaluation of a differentiation model of preschoolers’ executive functions. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 285. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00285.
  91. Houwen, S., Visser, L., van der Putten, A., &Vlaskamp, C. (2016). The interrelationships between motor, cognitive, and language development in children with and without intellectual and developmental disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 53, 19–31.
  92. HouwenSuzanne, Erica Kamphorst, Gerda van der Veer, MarjaCantell, Identifying patterns of motor performance, executive functioning,and verbal ability in preschool children: A latent profile analysis. ScienceDirectResearch in Developmental Disabilities. www.elsevier.com/locate/redevdis,
  93. HouwenSuzanne⇑, Gerda van der Veer, Jan Visser, MarjaCantell, The relationship between motor performance and parent-rated  executive functioning in 3- to 5-year-old children: What is the role of confounding variables?, Human Movement Science, www.elsevier.com/ locate/humov.
  94. Huizinga, M., &Smidts, D. P. (2011). Age-related changes in executive function: A normative study with the Dutch version of the Behavior Rating Inventoryof Executive Function (BRIEF). Child Neuropsychology, 17, 51–66.
  95. Isquith, P. K., Roth, R. M., &Gioia, G. (2013). Contribution of rating scales to the assessment of executive functions. Applied Neuropsychology: Child, 2,125–132. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21622965.2013.748389.
  96. Jelsma, D., Geuze, R. H., Mombarg, R., & Smits-Engelsman, B. C. (2014). The impact of Wii Fit intervention on dynamic balance control in children withprobable Developmental Coordination Disorder and balance problems. Human Movement Science, 33, 404–418.
  97. Kapa, L. L., & Plante, E. (2015). Executive function in SLI: Recent advances and future directions. Current Developmental Disorders Reports, 2, 245–252.
  98. Karbach, J., & Unger, K. (2014). Executive control training from middle childhood to adolescence. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1–14.
  99. Kaushanskaya, M., Park, J. S., Gangopadhyay, I., Davidson, M. M., &Weismer, S. E. (2017). The relationship between executive functions and language abilities in children: A latent variables approach. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 60, 912–923.
  100. Kenny, L., Hill, E., & Hamilton, A. F. D. C. (2016). The relationship between social and motor cognition in primary school age-children. FrontiersinPsychology, 7.
  101. Klein, M., Fröhlich, M., Pieter, A., &Emrich, E. (2015). Socio-economic status and motor performance of children and adolescents. European Journal of SportScience. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2014.1001876. Advance online publication.
  102. Koutsandréou, F., Wegner, M., Niemann, C., &Budde, H. (2016). Effects of motor versus cardiovascular exercise training on children’s working memory.Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 48, 1144–1152.
  103. Koziol, L. F., Budding, D. E., &Chidekel, D. (2012). From movement to thought: Executive function, embodied cognition, and the cerebellum. The Cerebellum, 11,505–525. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12311-011-0321-y.
  104. Kray, J., Eenshuistra, R., Kerstner, H., Weidema, M., &Hommel, B. (2006). Language and action control: The acquisition of action goals in early childhood.Psychological Science, 17, 737–741. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01774.x.
  105. Kozma EE, et al. (2018) Hip extensor mechanics and the evolution of walking and climbingcapabilities in humans, apes, and fossil hominins. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 115:4134–4139.
  106. Kurt S, Fisher SE, Ehret G (2012) Foxp2 mutations impair auditory-motor associationlearning. PLoS One 7:e33130.
  107. Leonard, H. C. (2016). The impact of poor motor skills on perceptual, social and cognitive development: The case of developmental coordination disorder.Frontiers in Psychology, 7.
  108. Leonard, H. C., Bernardi, M., Hill, E. L., & Henry, L. A. (2015). Executive functioning, motor difficulties, and developmental coordination disorder.Developmental Neuropsychology, 40, 201–215.
  109. Leonard, H. C., & Hill, E. L. (2015). Executive difficulties in developmental coordination disorder: Methodological issues and future directions. CurrentDevelopmental Disorders Reports, 2, 141–149.
  110. Lieberman DE (1998) Sphenoid shortening and the evolution of modern humancranial shape. Nature 393:158–162.
  111. Libertus, K., &Hauf, P. (2017). Motor skills and their foundational role for perceptual, social, and cognitive development. Frontiers in Psychology, 8. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00301.
  112. Libertus, K., &Violi, D. A. (2016). Sit to talk: Relation between motor skills and language development in infancy. Frontiers in Psychology, 7. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00475.
  113. Lieberman DE, McBratney BM, Krovitz G (2002) The evolution and development ofcranial form in Homosapiens. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99:1134–1139.
  114. Livesey, D., Keen, J., Rouse, J., & White, F. (2006). The relationship between measures of executive function, motor performance and externalisingbehaviourin 5-and 6-year-old children. Human Movement Science, 25, 50–64.
  115. Locke L. John. Movement Patterns in Spoken Language. Science, vol.288, 21 April 2000. www.sciencemag.org.
  116. Loe, I. M., Chatav, M., &Alduncin, N. (2015). Complementary assessments of executive function in preterm and full-term preschoolers. ChildNeuropsychology, 21, 331–353.
  117. Luo, Z., Jose, P. E., Huntsinger, C. S., & Pigott, T. D. (2007). Fine motor skills and mathematics achievement in East Asian American and European Americankindergartners and first graders. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 25, 595–614. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/026151007X185329.
  118. Mahone, E. M., Martin, R., Kates, W. R., Hay, T., &Horská, A. (2009). Neuroimaging correlates of parent ratings of working memory in typically developingchildren. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 15, 31–41.
  119. Martin, R., Tigera, C., Denckla, M. B., &Mahone, M. E. (2010). Factor structure of paediatric timed motor examination and its relationship with IQ.Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 52, e188–e194. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8749.2010.03670.x.
  120. Milligan, K., Astington, J. W., &Dack, L. A. (2007). Language and theory of mind: Meta-analysis of the relation between language ability and false-belief understanding.Child Development, 78, 622–646. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01018.x.
  121. Miyake, A., Emerson, M. J., & Friedman, N. P. (2000). Assessment of executive functions in clinical settings: Problems and recommendations. Seminars in Speech andLanguage, 21, 169–183. http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-2000-7563.
  122. Missiuna, C., & Campbell, W. N. (2014). Psychological aspects of developmental coordination disorder: can we establish causality? Current DevelopmentalDisorders Reports, 1, 125–131.
  123. Molitor, S., Michel, E., & Schneider, W. (2015). Executive functions in children with motor coordination impairments. Kindheit und Entwicklung, 24, 181–188.
  124. Monette, S., Bigras, M., &Lafrenière, M. A. (2015). Structure of executive functions in typically developing kindergarteners. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,140, 120–139. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2015.07.005.
  125. Moreno, I., de Vega, M., & Leon, I. (2013). Understanding actionlanguage modulates oscillatory mu and beta rhythms in thesame way as observing actions. Brain and Cognition, 82(3),236e242.
  126. Morgan A, Fisher SE, Scheffer I, Hildebrand M (2016) FOXP2-related speech andlanguage disorders. Available at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27336128.Accessed July 26, 2018.
  127. Müller, U., Jacques, S., Brocki, K., &Zelazo, P. D. (2009). The executive functions of language in preschool children. In A. Winsler, C. Fernyhough, & I. Montero (Eds.).Private speech, executive functioning, and the development of verbal self-regulation (pp. 53–68). . http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511581533.005.
  128. Mulder, H., Hoofs, H., Verhagen, J., van der Veen, I., &Leseman, P. P. M. (2014). Psychometric properties and convergent and predictive validity of anexecutive function test battery for two-year-olds. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 733.
  129. Mumford, N. H., Duckworth, J., & Wilson, P. H. (2015). The application of enhanced virtual environments for co-located childhood movement disorderrehabilitation. Technology, rehabilitation and empowerment of people with special needs, 17–26.
  130. Murray, G. K., Jones, P. B., Kuh, D., & Richards, M. (2007). Infant developmental milestones and subsequent cognitive function. Annals of Neurology, 62,128–136. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/an.21120.
  131. Neubauer S, Hublin JJ, Gunz P (2018) The evolution of modern human brain shape. SciAdv4:eaao5961.
  132. Niederer, I., Kriemler, S., Gut, J., Hartmann, T., Schindler, C., Barral, J., &Puder, J. J. (2011). Relationship of aerobic fitness and motor skills with memory andattention in preschoolers (Ballabeina): A cross-sectional and longitudinal study. BMC Pediatrics, 11, 1.
  133. Nigg, J. T. (2000). On inhibition/disinhibition in developmental psychopathology: Views from cognitive and personality psychology and a working inhibitiontaxonomy. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 220–246.
  134. Nilsen, E. S., Huyder, V., McAuley, T., & Liebermann, D. (2016). Ratings of everyday executive functioning (REEF): A parent-report measure of preschoolers’executive functioning skills. Psychological Assessment. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pas0000308. Advance online publication.
  135. Nilsen, E. S., Huyder, V., McAuley, T., & Liebermann, D. (2017). Ratings of Everyday Executive Functioning (REEF): A parent-report measure of preschoolers’ executivefunctioning skills. Psychological Assessment, 29, 50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pas0000308.
  136. Nishitani, N., Schürmann, M., Amunts, K., & Hari, R. (2005). Broca’s region: From action to language. Physiology, 20, 60–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1152/physiol.00043.2004.
  137. Oudgenoeg-Paz, O., Volman, M. C., &Leseman, P. P. (2012). Attainment of sitting and walking predicts development of productive vocabulary between ages16 and 28 months. Infant Behavior and Development, 35, 733–736. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.infbeh.2012.07.010.
  138. Pesce, C., Croce, R., Ben-Soussan, T. D., Vazou, S., McCullick, B., Tomporowski, P. D., & Horvat, M. (2016). Variability of practice as an interface between motorand cognitive development. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 1–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2016.1223421.
  139. Pesce, C., Crova, C., Marchetti, M., Struzzolino, I., Masci, I., Vannozzi, G., & Forte, R. (2013). Searching for cognitively optimal challenge point in physicalactivity for children with typical and atypical motor development. Mental Health and Physical Activity, 6, 172–180. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mhpa.2013.07.001.
  140. Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. New York, NY: International Universities Press.
  141. Piek, J. P., Dawson, L., Smith, L. M., &Gasson, N. (2008). The role of early fine and gross motor development on later motor and cognitive ability. HumanMovement Science, 27, 668–681.
  142. Piek, J. P., Dyck, M. J., Francis, M., & Conwell, A. (2007). Working memory, processing speed, and set-shifting in children with developmental coordinationdisorder and attention-deficit-hyperactivity disorder. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 49, 678–683. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8749.2007.00678.x.
  143. Piek, J. P., Dyck, M. J., Nieman, A., Anderson, M., Hay, D., Smith, L. M., &Hallmayer, J. (2004). The relationship between motor coordination, executivefunctioning and attention in school aged children. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 19, 1063–1076.
  144. Piek, J. P., Hands, B., & Licari, M. K. (2012). Assessment of motor functioning in the preschool period. Neuropsychology Review, 22, 402–413.
  145. Pilar Casado a,b,*,1, Manuel Martı´n-Loechesa,b, Inmaculada Le on c,d, David Hern andez-Gutierrez a, Javier Espuny a, Francisco Mu~noza,b, Laura Jim enez-Ortega a,b, SabelaFondevila a and Manuel de Vega c,dWhen syntax meets action: Brain potential evidence of overlapping between language and motor sequencing. ScienceDirect
  146. Pratt, H. L., Leonard, H. C., Adeyinka, H., & Hill, E. L. (2014). The effect of motor load on planning and inhibition in developmental coordination disorder.Research in Developmental Disabilities, 35, 1579–1587.
  147. Preston, N., Magallón, S., Hill, L. J., Andrews, E., Ahern, S. M., & Mon-Williams, M. (2016). A systematic review of high quality randomized controlled trialsinvestigating motor skill programmes for children with developmental coordination disorder. Clinical Rehabilitation. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0269215516661014. Advance online publication..
  148. Psotta, R., & Brom, O. (2016). Factorial structure of the movement assessment battery for children test—second edition in preschool children. Perceptual andMotor Skills. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0031512516666072. Advance online publication.
  149. Pulvermüller, F. (2005). Brain mechanisms linking language and action. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 6, 576–582. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nrn1706.
  150. Punt, M., de Jong, M., de Groot, E., &Hadders-Algra, M. (2010). Minor neurological dysfunction in children with dyslexia. Developmental Medicine and ChildNeurology, 52, 1127–1132.
  151. Rahimi-Golkhandan, S., Piek, J. P., Steenbergen, B., & Wilson, P. H. (2014). Hot executive function in children with developmental coordination disorder:Evidence for heightened sensitivity to immediate reward. Cognitive Development, 32, 23–37.
  152. Rahimi-Golkhandan, S., Steenbergen, B., Piek, J. P., Caeyenberghs, K., & Wilson, P. H. (2016). Revealing hot executive function in children with motorcoordination problems: What’s the go? Brain and Cognition, 106, 55–64.
  153. Rahimi-Golkhandan, S., Steenbergen, B., Piek, J. P., & Wilson, P. H. (2014). Deficits of hot executive function in developmental coordination disorder:Sensitivity to positive social cues. Human Movement Science, 38, 209–224.
  154. Ridler, K., Veijola, J. M., Tanskanen, P., Miettunen, J., Chitnis, X., Suckling, J., &Bullmore, E. T. (2006). Fronto-cerebellar systems are associated with infantmotor and adult executive functions in healthy adults but not in schizophrenia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 103, 15651–15656. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0602639103.
  155. Riede T (2011) Subglottal pressure, tracheal airflow, and intrinsic laryngeal muscleactivity during rat ultrasound vocalization. J Neurophysiol 106:2580–2592.
  156.  Rigoli, D., Piek, J. P., Kane, R., &Oosterlaan, J. (2012). An examination of the relationship between motor coordination and executive functions in adolescents.Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 54, 1025–1031.
  157. Rigoli, D., Piek, J. P., Kane, R. T., Whillier, A., Baxter, C., & Wilson, P. H. (2013). An 18-month follow-up investigation of motor coordination and workingmemory in primary school children. Human Movement Science, 32, 1116–1126. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2013.07.014.
  158. Rihtman, T., Wilson, B. N., &Parush, S. (2011). Development of the little developmental coordination disorder questionnaire for preschoolers andpreliminary evidence of its psychometric properties in Israel. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 32, 1378–1387.
  159. Roebers, C. M., &Kauer, M. (2009). Motor and cognitive control in a normative sample of 7-year-olds. Developmental Science, 12, 175–181.
  160. Ruddock, S., Caeyenberghs, K., Piek, J., Sugden, D., Hyde, C., Morris, S., & Wilson, P. (2016). Coupling of online control and inhibitory systems in children withatypical motor development: A growth curve modelling study. Brain and Cognition, 109, 84–95.
  161. SalettaMeredith ,Goffman,b Lisa, Ward Catlin ,a and Olesona Jacob. Influence of Language Load on SpeechMotor Skill in Children WithSpecificLanguage Impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research • Vol. 61 • 675–689 • March 2018 • Copyright © 2018 American Speech-Language-Hearing Association.
  162. Schreiweis C, et al. (2014) Humanized Foxp2 accelerates learning by enhancing transitionsfrom declarative to procedural performance. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111:14253–14258.
  163. Schulze K, Vargha-Khadem F, Mishkin M (2018) Phonological working memory andFOXP2. Neuropsychologia 108:147–152.
  164. ShuqinXua, Pei Liua, Yuanxing Chena, Yi Chenb, Wei Zhanga, HaixiaZhaoa, YiweiCaoa, FuhuaWanga, Nana Jianga,Shifeng Lina, Baojie Lia, ZhenlinZhangc, ZhanyingWeic, Ying Fanc, YunyunJind, Lin Hea, RujiangZhoua,Joseph D. Dekkere, Haley O. Tuckere, Simon E. Fisherf,g, ZhengjuYaoa, Quansheng Liub,1, Xuechun Xiaa,1,and Xizhi Guoa,1. Foxp2 regulates anatomical features that may berelevant for vocal behaviors and bipedal locomotion.Edited by Joseph S. Takahashi, Howard Hughes Medical Institute and University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, and approved July 12, 2018(received for review December 18, 2017). PNAS.
  165. Skogan, A. H., Egeland, J., Zeiner, P., Øvergaard, K. R., Oerbeck, B., Reichborn-Kjennerud, T., & Aase, H. (2016). Factor structure of the Behavior RatingInventory of Executive Functions (BRIEF-P) at age three years. Child Neuropsychology, 22, 472–492.
  166. Skogan, A. H., Zeiner, P., Egeland, J., Urnes, A. G., Reichborn-Kjennerud, T., & Aase, H. (2015). Parent ratings of executive function in young preschool childrenwith symptoms of attention-deficit/-hyperactivity disorder. Behavioral and Brain Functions, 11, 16.
  167. Smith, L., & Gasser, M. (2005). The development of embodied cognition: Six lessons from babies. Artificial Life, 11, 13–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/1064546053278973.
  168. Smith-Donald, R., Raver, C. C., Hayes, T., & Richardson, B. (2007). Preliminary construct and clinical concurrent validity of the Preschool.
  169. Smits-Engelsman, B. C., Niemeijer, A. S., & van Waelvelde, H. (2011). Is the Movement Assessment Battery for Children-a reliable instrument to measure motor performance in 3 year old children? Research in Developmental Disabilities, 32, 1370–1377.
  170. Smits-Engelsman, B., & Hill, E. L. (2012). The relationship between motor coordination and intelligence across the IQ range. Pediatrics, 130, e950–e956.http://dx.doi.org/10.1542/peds.2011-3712.
  171. Stöckel, T., & Hughes, C. M. (2015). The relation between measures of cognitive and motor functioning in 5-to 6-year-old children. Psychological Research.http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00426-015-0662-0. Advance online publication.
  172. TenEycke, K. D., & Dewey, D. (2015). Parent-report and performance-based measures of executive function assess different constructs. ChildNeuropsychology. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09297049.2015.1065961. Advance online publication..
  173. Ten Eycke, K. D., & Dewey, D. (2016). Parent-report and performance-based measures of executive function assess different constructs. Child Neuropsychology, 22,889–906.
  174. Thelen, E., & Smith, L. B. (1994). A dynamic systems approach to the development of cognition and action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  175. Thorell, L. B., &Wahlstedt, C. (2006). Executive functioning deficits in relation to symptoms of ADHD and/or ODD in preschool children. Infant and Child Development,15, 503–518. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/icd.
  176. Theunissen, M. H., Vogels, A. G., de Wolff, M. S., &Reijneveld, S. A. (2013). Characteristics of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire in preschoolchildren. Pediatrics, 131, e446–e454.
  177. Toplak, M. E., West, R. F., & Stanovich, K. E. (2013). Practitioner review: Do performance-based measures and ratings of executive function assess the sameconstruct? Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 54, 131–143.
  178. Toussaint-Thorin, M., Marchal, F., Benkhaled, O., Pradat-Diehl, P., Boyer, F. C., &Chevignard, M. (2013). Executive functions of children with developmentaldyspraxia: Assessment combining neuropsychological and ecological tests. Annals of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, 56(4), 268–287.
  179. Tucker, P., Irwin, J. D., Gilliland, J., He, M., Larsen, K., & Hess, P. (2009). Environmental influences on physical activity levels in youth. Health & Place, 15,357–363.
  180. Van der Fels, I. M., teWierike, S. C., Hartman, E., Elferink-Gemser, M. T., Smith, J., & Visscher, C. (2015). The relationship between motor skills and cognitiveskills in 4–16 year old typically developing children: A systematic review. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 18, 697–703. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2014.09.007.
  181. Van der Heijden, K. B., Suurland, J., De Sonneville, L. M. J., &Swaab, H. (2013). BRIEF–P executive functioning questionnaire for preschoolers. Amsterdam,Netherlands: Hogrefe.
  182. Van der Ven, S. H. G., Kroesbergen, E. H., Boom, J., &Leseman, P. P. M. (2012). The development of executive functions and early mathematics: A dynamicrelationship. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 100–119.
  183. Van Elk, M., van Schie, H. T., Zwaan, R. A., &Bekkering, H. (2010). The functional role of motor activation in language
  184. Vargha-Khadem F, Gadian DG, Copp A, Mishkin M (2005) FOXP2 and the neuroanatomyof speech and language. Nat Rev Neurosci 6:131–138.processing: Motor cortical oscillations support lexicalesemantic retrieval. NeuroImage, 50(2), 665e677.
  185. Von Hofsten, C. (2007). Action in development. Developmental Science, 10, 54–60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2007.00564.x.
  186. Von Hofsten, C. (2009). Action, the foundation for cognitive development. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 50, 617–623. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9450.2009.00780.x.
  187. Vukovic, N., &Shtyrov, Y. (2014). Cortical motor systems are involved in second-language comprehension: Evidence from rapid mu-rhythm desynchronisation. NeuroImage, 102(2), 695e703.
  188. Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  189. Walle, E. A., & Campos, J. J. (2014). Infant language and development is related to the acquisition of walking. Developmental Psychology, 50, 336–348.
  190. Wardlow, L., Ivanova, I., &Gollan, T. H. (2014). The cognitive mechanisms underlying perspective taking between conversational partners: Evidence from speakers with Alzheimer ׳s disease. Neuropsychologia, 56, 184e195.
  191. Wassenberg, R., Feron, F. J., Kessels, A. G., Hendriksen, J. G., Kalff, A. C., Kroes, M., &Vles, J. S. (2005). Relation between cognitive and motor performance in 5-to 6-year-old children: Results from a large-scale cross-sectional study. Child Development, 76, 1092–1103.
  192. Wechsler, D. (2009). WPPSI-III-NL Nederlandstaligebewerking: Afname- enscoringshandleiding [Dutch version of the WPPSI-III-NL: Administration and scoring manual]Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Pearson Assessment and Information BV (Dutch adaptation by: Hendriksen, J., &Hurks, P., 2009).
  193. Wechsler, D. (2010). WPPSI-III-NL Nederlandstaligebewerking: Technischehandleiding [Dutch version of the WPPSI-III-NL: Technical and interpretive manual] (2nd ed.).Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Pearson Assessment and Information BV (Dutch adaptation by: Hendriksen, J., &Hurks, P., 2010).
  194. Wiebe, S. A., Espy, K. A., &Charak, D. (2008). Using confirmatory factor analysis to understand executive control in preschool children: I. Latent structure.Developmental Psychology, 44, 575–587. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.44.2.575.
  195. Willems, R. M., &Hagoort, P. (2007). Neural evidence for the interplay between language, gesture, and action: A review. Brain and Language, 10, 278–289. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2007.03.004.
  196. Wilson, P., Green, D., Caeyenberghs, K., Steenbergen, B., & Duckworth, J. (2016). Integrating new technologies into the treatment of CP and DCD. CurrentDevelopmental Disorders Reports, 3, 138–151.
  197. Wilson, P. H., Ruddock, S., Smits-Engelsman, B., Polatajko, H., & Blank, R. (2013). Understanding performance deficits in developmental coordinationdisorder: A meta-analysis of recent research. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 55, 217–228.
  198. Wilson, P. H. (2014). Developmental cognitive neuroscience perspective on motor rehabilitation. In P. Sharkey & J. Merrick (Eds.), Virtual reality: People withspecial needs (pp. 7–20). NY: Nova Science Publishers.
  199. Winkleby, M. A., Jatulis, D. E., Frank, E., &Fortmann, S. P. (1992). Socioeconomic status and health: How education, income, and occupation contribute to riskfactors for cardiovascular disease. American Journal of Public Health, 82, 816–820. http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.82.6.816.
  200. Zipoli Caiani Silvano. COGNIZIONE INCORPORATA. APhEx 8, 2013. ed. Vera Tripodi.
  201. Zubaida Shebani1,2* and Friedemann Pulvermüller3,4,5*Flexibility in Language ActionInteraction: The Influence ofMovementTypeORIGINALRESEARCHpublished: 25 June 2018doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2018.00252
  202. Zwicker, J. G., Missiuna, C., Harris, S. R., & Boyd, L. A. (2011). Brain activation associated with motor skill practice in children with developmental coordination disorder: An fMRI study. International Journal of Developmental Neuroscience, 29, 145–152.