CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 902Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesCognitive Abilities and TestingCognitive Functions and Memory

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Intelligence and the Frontal Lobe: The Organization of Goal-Directed Behavior

Duncan, John, Emslie, Hazel, Williams, Phyllis, Johnson, Roger, Freer, Charles·1996·Cognitive Psychology
DOI 10.1006/cogp.1996.0008
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Basic to the study of individual differences is the concept of 'general intelligence' or Spearman's g. In this article we suggest that g is largely a reflection of the control functions of the frontal lobe. A series of experiments investigates a phenomenon we call goal neglect: disregard of a task requirement event though it has been understood and remembered. Subjectively it is as though the neglected requirement "slips the subject's mind." Previously described in frontal patients, we show that goal neglect can also be seen in some members of the normal population. In line with conventional distinctions between controlled and automatic processing, eliciting conditions for goal neglect include novelty, weak error feedback, and multiple concurrent task requirements. Under these conditions neglect is linked closely to g and extremely common after frontal lesions. Following many other models, we suggest that behavior in any task is structured by a set of action constraints or requirements, derived in part from verbal instructions and specified at multiple levels of abstraction. A frontal process of constraint or requirement activation is fundamental to Spearman's g.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1006/cogp.1996.0008

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Still being checked.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 801–900 of 902

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Duncan, J., Emslie, H., Williams, P., Johnson, R., & Freer, C.
Affiliations
Addenbrooke's Hospital (GB)
Venue
Cognitive Psychology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1996-06
Volume
30
Issue
3
Pages
257-303
ISSN
0010-0285 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1006/cogp.1996.0008
OpenAlex
W1989920002
Cited by
902
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 36 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 37 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 46 · 2018: 28 · 2017: 40 · 2016: 35 · 2015: 26 · 2014: 54 · 2013: 48 · 2012: 38
FWCI
6.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Cognitive Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
Keywords
general intelligence, frontal lobe, goal neglect, goal-directed behavior, frontal lobe lesions, task demands, error feedback, novelty, individual differences, action constraints
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Arousal, Attention, Brain Damage, Chronic, Brain Mapping, Concept Formation, Dichotic Listening Tests, Female, Frontal Lobe, Goals, Humans, Intelligence, Male, Middle Aged, Neuropsychological Tests, Orientation, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Mental Recall, Speech Perception

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review