Predrag Petrovic
Charlotte Borg Skoglund
Edmund Sonuga-Barke- 1Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Center for Cognitive and Computational Neuropsychiatry (CCNP), Stockholm, Sweden
- 2Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Center for Psychiatry Research (CPF), Stockholm, Sweden
- 3Department of Women’s and Children’s Health, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
- 4Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
- 5School of Academic Psychiatry, Institute of psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King’s College London, London, United Kingdom
Editorial on the Research Topic
Executive functions in psychiatric science, clinical practice and beyond: A Transdiagnostic Window on Functional Heterogeneity
Introduction: the translational imperative
The primary purpose of psychiatric brain sciences is translational - to generate insights that translate into better treatments and improved lives. Yet for decades our field has been constrained by a disorder-dysfunction paradigm that presents diagnostic categories as underpinned by a distinctive and discrete core set of neuropsychological deficits which can serve as a treatment target (1). For example, depression may be hypothesized to arise from dysregulated mood networks, ADHD from disrupted attention networks, autism from deficits in social processing networks, and so on. The translational process of how basic neuropsychological science is translated to clinical innovation within such a framework is clear: identify the deficit, design the intervention to target that deficit and resolve the disorder caused by the deficit.
The need to move beyond diagnosis-specific neuropsychological deficits: overlap and heterogeneity
Frankly this model has not delivered. Despite substantial scientific progress more generally in understanding the brain-basis of different conditions, translational progress built on the categorical framework has yielded limited translational progress (2–7). New science-derived treatments, such as brain training and neuromodulation, remain blunt, effect sizes in RCTs are at best small, so that many patients continue to struggle without meaningful relief (8, 9). The promise of disorder-specific deficits as direct targets has proven largely illusory. Progress in brain sciences emerging from our laboratories now points to a very different reality: overlap between conditions and striking heterogeneity within them (10–12).
Across psychiatry, evidence has accumulated to challenge the credibility of this paradigm. Many neuropsychological deficits and associated brain alterations recur across ADHD, autism, mood, anxiety, and personality disorders (13). At the same time, patients given the same diagnostic label often differ from one another profoundly in cognitive profile, trajectory, and treatment response. ADHD provides a striking example. Only a subset of individuals with ADHD show objectively measured deficits in executive functions (EFs) (14, 15); others may present with for example motivational or emotional dysregulation as primary drivers (1, 16).
This inter-individual and cross-condition variation may be regarded as irrelevant noise obscuring the underlying true phenotype. Alternatively, it may not be the noise but the true signal – capturing the true nature of the complexity of how brain processes are mapped onto clinical conditions? An alternative to only rely on categorical diagnoses is to construct models that can capture these causal variations and overlaps. A dimensional approach may be a first step to characterize inter-individual differences (16–20). However, we believe it is not enough to just rebrand categories as dimensions. Rather, psychiatric science needs to pursue greater precision that can drive therapeutic innovation by identifying mechanistic processes that cut across diagnostic boundaries while also parsing variation within them. Through this it can provide more powerful targets for stratification and intervention—bringing us closer to truly personalised psychiatry.
Executive function as a translational candidate
Among candidate constructs, executive function (EF), both in its generality as an umbrella construct, but also in its specificity offers a compelling focus. EFs—working memory, inhibition, cognitive flexibility, planning—are the top-down control processes that govern behaviour and enable adaptation to complex environments (21, 22). They represent a plausible mechanistic substrate through which heterogeneity and overlap may be understood.
Crucially, EF deficits are not universal within any one condition. In the subset of patients with ADHD that exhibit profound EF impairment, these deficits are strongly linked to poor functional outcomes—educational underachievement, occupational difficulties, interpersonal conflict (14, 15). In depression, anxiety, and bipolar disorder, EF difficulties predict illness severity, degree of dysfunction, relapse risk, and treatment non-response (23–26). In autism, EF profiles help explain variability in adaptive functioning and comorbid psychopathology (27). Across disorders, then, EF impairments mark out subgroups with distinct trajectories and treatment needs.
Evidence from recent studies
The contributions in this Research Topic further illustrate the translational promise—and challenges—of EF research. Kaiser et al. show that while EF profiles may not predict stimulant response at the individual level, they nonetheless capture mechanistic variation relevant for treatment development. Farnes et al. highlight the complexities of targeting EF with neuromodulation approaches such as rTMS. Sacu et al. and Cully and Björnsdotter underscore how environmental adversity and stress may shape EF-related neural circuits, identifying early prevention targets. Vestberg et al. demonstrate that cognitive flexibility predicts resilience and reduced sick leave, linking EF capacities directly to real-world outcomes. Finally, Malekizadeh et al. show that EF deficits align more closely with depression severity than categorical diagnosis, and may represent a vulnerability as well as a consequence.
Taken together, these studies highlight EF as a translational bridge: a cognitive construct that both reflects mechanistic heterogeneity within conditions and spans across traditional diagnostic boundaries.
Implications for translational psychiatry
Positioning EF at the heart of translational psychiatry carries three major implications:
1. Stratification: EF measures can parse heterogeneity within disorders, identifying clinically relevant subgroups.
2. Prediction: EF performance and neural markers can guide prognosis and treatment selection.
3. Intervention development: By targeting EF directly—through cognitive training, pharmacological modulation, or environmental scaffolding—we can design interventions that cut across categories.
If psychiatric science is to progress, it must move beyond the disorder paradigm that defines its current practice and its search for the illusory “core deficits”. The science emerging demands a new model: one that captures the causal heterogeneity within and overlap across disorders and translates this knowledge into new targets for new treatments. Executive functions provide a uniquely powerful window onto this challenge. By embedding EF research into translational pipelines, psychiatry can begin to deliver on its long-standing promise: personalised, mechanism-based interventions that make a tangible difference in people’s lives.
Author contributions
PP: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Conceptualization. CS: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Conceptualization. ES-B: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Conceptualization.
Conflict of interest
PP has received speaker fees from Medice, Takeda, Läkartidningen and Capacio. He has also served as advisor for Medice and Capacio, and has shares in Capacio. Over the last three years ES-B received conference support and speaker fees from Medice & Takeda, in kind research support from QBTech and honoraria from Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry and the University of Aarhus. He has received royalties from Jessica Kingsley Publications. CS is founder and owner of a private Swedish clinic for assessment and treatment of ADHD in children and adults (SMART Psykiatri) and the founder of a digital selfcare tool for female ADHD (Letterlife). CS has participated at advisory boards, served as invited speaker and received honorariums/travel expenses from Shire/Takeda, Nordic Drugs, UCB Pharma, DNE Pharma, Novartis, Evolan, Lundbeck A/S, Gideon Richter and Medice during 2017–2024, serve as PI for research supported by Takeda 2022–2024 and receive royalties for popular science. books on ADHD from publishing houses in Sweden, Denmark, Estonia, UK, USA, Canada, Australia, New Zeeland, Poland, Germany, France, Korea and China. SC has declared reimbursement for travel and accommodation expenses from the Association for Child and Adolescent Central Health (ACAMH) in relation to lectures delivered for ACAMH, the Canadian AADHD Alliance Resource, the British Association of Psychopharmacology, and from Healthcare Convention for educational activity on ADHD, and has received honoraria from Medice.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declare that no Generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1. Sonuga-Barke EJS. Paradigm ‘flipping’ to reinvigorate translational science: Outlining a neurodevelopmental science framework from a ‘neurodiversity’ perspective. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. (2023) 64:1405–8. doi: 10.1111/jcpp.13886
2. Insel T, Cuthbert B, Garvey M, Heinssen R, Pine DS, Quinn K, et al. Research domain criteria (RDoC): toward a new classification framework for research on mental disorders. Am J Psychiatry. (2010) 167:748–51. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2010.09091379
3. Miller G. Psychiatry. Beyond DSM: seeking a brain-based classification of mental illness. Science. (2010) 327:1437. doi: 10.1126/science.327.5972.1437
4. Casey BJ, Craddock N, Cuthbert BN, Hyman SE, Lee FS, and Ressler KJ. DSM-5 and RDoC: progress in psychiatry research? Nat Rev Neurosci. (2013) 14:810–4. doi: 10.1038/nrn3621
5. Friston KJ, Stephan KE, Montague R, and Dolan RJ. Computational psychiatry: the brain as a phantastic organ. Lancet Psychiatry. (2014) 1:148–58. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366(14)70275-5
6. Kendler KS. The nature of psychiatric disorders. World Psychiatry. (2016) 15:5–12. doi: 10.1002/wps.20292
7. Paulus MP, Huys QJ, and Maia TV. A roadmap for the development of applied computational psychiatry. Biol Psychiatry Cognit Neurosci Neuroimaging. (2016) 1:386–92. doi: 10.1016/j.bpsc.2016.05.001
8. Westwood SJ, Radua J, and Rubia K. Noninvasive brain stimulation in children and adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Psychiatry Neurosci. (2021) 46:E14–33. doi: 10.1503/jpn.190179
9. Westwood SJ, Aggensteiner PM, Kaiser A, Nagy P, Donno F, Merkl D, et al. Neurofeedback for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Psychiatry. (2025) 82:118–29. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2024.3702
10. Sonuga-Barke E, Bitsakou P, and Thompson M. Beyond the dual pathway model: evidence for the dissociation of timing, inhibitory, and delay-related impairments in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. (2010) 49:345–55. doi: 10.1097/00004583-201004000-00009
11. Lombardo MV, Lai MC, and Baron-Cohen S. Big data approaches to decomposing heterogeneity across the autism spectrum. Mol Psychiatry. (2019) 24:1435–50. doi: 10.1038/s41380-018-0321-0
12. Mccutcheon RA, Pillinger T, Guo X, Rogdaki M, Welby G, Vano L, et al. Shared and separate patterns in brain morphometry across transdiagnostic dimensions. Nat Ment Health. (2023) 1:pages55–65. doi: 10.1038/s44220-022-00010-y
13. Astle DE, Holmes J, Kievit R, and Gathercole SE. Annual Research Review: The transdiagnostic revolution in neurodevelopmental disorders. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. (2022) 63:397–417. doi: 10.1111/jcpp.13481
14. Biederman J, Petty C, Fried R, Fontanella J, Doyle AE, Seidman LJ, et al. Impact of psychometrically defined deficits of executive functioning in adults with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Am J Psychiatry. (2006) 163:1730–8. doi: 10.1176/ajp.2006.163.10.1730
15. Halleland HB, Sorensen L, Posserud MB, Haavik J, and Lundervold AJ. Occupational status is compromised in adults with ADHD and psychometrically defined executive function deficits. J Atten Disord. (2019) 23:76–86. doi: 10.1177/1087054714564622
16. Petrovic P and Castellanos FX. Top-down dysregulation - from ADHD to emotional instability. Front Behav Neurosci. (2016) 10:1–25. doi: 10.3389/fnbeh.2016.00070
17. Das D, Cherbuin N, Butterworth P, Anstey KJ, and Easteal S. A population-based study of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder symptoms and associated impairment in middle-aged adults. PloS One. (2012) 7:e31500. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0031500
18. Ruzich E, Allison C, Smith P, Watson P, Auyeung B, Ring H, et al. Measuring autistic traits in the general population: a systematic review of the Autism-Spectrum Quotient (AQ) in a nonclinical population sample of 6,900 typical adult males and females. Mol Autism. (2015) 6:2. doi: 10.1186/2040-2392-6-2
19. Bayard F, Nymberg Thunell C, Abe C, Almeida R, Banaschewski T, Barker G, et al. Distinct brain structure and behavior related to ADHD and conduct disorder traits. Mol Psychiatry. (2020) 25:3020–33. doi: 10.1038/s41380-018-0202-6
20. Moses M, Tiego J, Demontis D, Bragi Walters G, Stefansson H, Stefansson K, et al. Working memory and reaction time variability mediate the relationship between polygenic risk and ADHD traits in a general population sample. Mol Psychiatry. (2022) 27:5028–37. doi: 10.1038/s41380-022-01775-5
21. Diamond A. Executive functions. Annu Rev Psychol. (2013) 64:135–68. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143750
22. Friedman NP and Miyake A. Unity and diversity of executive functions: Individual differences as a window on cognitive structure. Cortex. (2017) 86:186–204. doi: 10.1016/j.cortex.2016.04.023
23. Airaksinen E, Larsson M, and Forsell Y. Neuropsychological functions in anxiety disorders in population-based samples: evidence of episodic memory dysfunction. J Psychiatr Res. (2005) 39:207–14. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2004.06.001
24. Robinson LJ and Ferrier IN. Evolution of cognitive impairment in bipolar disorder: a systematic review of cross-sectional evidence. Bipolar Disord. (2006) 8:103–16. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-5618.2006.00277.x
25. Rock PL, Roiser JP, Riedel WJ, and Blackwell AD. Cognitive impairment in depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychol Med. (2014) 44:2029–40. doi: 10.1017/S0033291713002535
26. Drakopoulos J, Sparding T, Clements C, Palsson E, and Landen M. Executive functioning but not IQ or illness severity predicts occupational status in bipolar disorder. Int J Bipolar Disord. (2020) 8:7. doi: 10.1186/s40345-019-0168-6
Keywords: executive functions (EF), cognition, psychiatry, transdiagnostic, dimensional, categorical diagnosis, precision medicine
Citation: Petrovic P, Skoglund CB and Sonuga-Barke E (2025) Editorial: Executive functions in psychiatric science, clinical practice and beyond: A Transdiagnostic Window on Functional Heterogeneity. Front. Psychiatry 16:1743127. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2025.1743127
Received: 10 November 2025; Accepted: 13 November 2025; Revised: 10 November 2025;
Published: 09 December 2025.
Edited and reviewed by:
Urs Heilbronner, LMU Munich University Hospital, GermanyCopyright © 2025 Petrovic, Skoglund and Sonuga-Barke. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Predrag Petrovic, cHJlZHJhZy5wZXRyb3ZpY0BraS5zZQ==