ReviewReviews in the neurosciences2017
How neuroscience can inform the study of individual differences in cognitive abilities.
Review in Reviews in the neurosciences, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating Individual Differences in Implicit Perceptual-Motor Learning: A Parallel Assessments Approach.Journal of Intelligence · 2025Article
- Deficits in force production during multifinger tasks demarcate cognitive dysfunction.Aging clinical and experimental research · 2024Article
- Educational fMRI: From the Lab to the Classroom.Frontiers in psychology · 2019Review
- Enhancing Intelligence: From the Group to the Individual.Journal of Intelligence · 2018Article
- Evaluation of multidimensional models of WAIS-IV subtest performance.The Clinical neuropsychologistArticle
- Preclinical modeling of exposure to a global marine bio-contaminant: Effects of in utero Domoic acid exposure on neonatal behavior and infant memory.Neurotoxicology and teratologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Theories of human mental abilities should be consistent with what is known in neuroscience. Currently, tests of human mental abilities are modeled by cognitive constructs such as attention, working memory, and speed of information processing. These constructs are in turn related to a single general ability. However, brains are very complex systems and whether most of the variability between the operations of different brains can be ascribed to a single factor is questionable. Research in neuroscience suggests that psychological processes such as perception, attention, decision, and executive control are emergent properties of interacting distributed networks. The modules that make up these networks use similar computational processes that involve multiple forms of neural plasticity, each having different time constants. Accordingly, these networks might best be characterized in terms of the information they process rather than in terms of abstract psychological processes such as working memory and executive control.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.