Cited by 538Cognitive Abilities and TestingHistorical and Modern Theater StudiesNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

Fluid intelligence after frontal lobe lesions

Duncan, John, Burgess, Paul, Emslie, Hazel·1995·Neuropsychologia

Abstract

Generally positive correlations between different ability tests provide the evidence for a factor of "general intelligence" or Spearman's g. Though a possible neural substrate for g is suggested by executive impairments following frontal lobe lesions, preserved IQs in some frontal patients have been taken as strong evidence against this interpretation. We show that such results depend on how g is measured. Patients with superior IQs on the most clinically popular test--the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale--show impairments of 20-60 points on conventionally measured fluid intelligence or novel problem solving. On psychometric grounds, it is fluid intelligence that is most closely related to Spearman's g. The data suggest that g may in large part be a reflection of frontal functions.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/0028-3932(94)00124-8

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • The dysexecutive syndrome may fractionate at the behavioral level, analogous to the fractionation of executive cognitive functions.

    “Thus it would seem that in the same way as there is growing evidence for the fractionation of executive cognitive functions (see, e.g., Burgess, 1997; Burgess & Shallice, 1994, 1996a, 1996c; Duncan et al., 1995; Goldstein et al., 1993), the syndrome may fractionate also at the behavioral level.”

    From The ecological validity of tests of executive function (1998) · cites this paper as Duncan et al., 1995

  • At least some conventional IQ tests do not tap many aspects of the cognitive and everyday problems shown by dysexecutive patients.

    “It would appear that at least some conventional IQ tests do not tap many aspects of the cognitive and everyday problems shown by dysexecutive patients (see Burgess, 1997; Duncan et al., 1995, for further discussion of the relationship between IQ and executive function).”

    From The ecological validity of tests of executive function (1998) · cites this paper as Duncan et al., 1995

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Duncan, J., Burgess, P., & Emslie, H.
Affiliations
University College London (GB)
Venue
Neuropsychologia
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1995-03
Volume
33
Issue
3
Pages
261-268
ISSN
0028-3932 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1973477197
Cited by
537
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 26 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 26 · 2013: 20 · 2012: 21
FWCI
14.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Neuropsychologia (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
U.S. Air Force
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Historical and Modern Theater Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Keywords
fluid intelligence, general intelligence, Spearman's g, frontal lobe lesions, executive function, Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, IQ, novel problem solving, neuropsychological assessment
MeSH terms
Adult, Brain Diseases, Frontal Lobe, Humans, Intelligence, Learning, Male, Memory Disorders, Middle Aged, Wechsler Scales

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