Cited by 878Cognitive Abilities and TestingNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesCreativity in Education and Neuroscience

Intelligence and neural efficiency

Neubauer, Aljoscha C., Fink, Andreas·2009·Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews

Abstract

We review research on the neural efficiency hypothesis of intelligence, stating that brighter individuals display lower (more efficient) brain activation while performing cognitive tasks [Haier, R.J., Siegel, B.V., Nuechterlein, K.H., Hazlett, E., Wu, J.C., Paek, J., Browning, H.L., Buchsbaum, M.S., 1988. Cortical glucose metabolic rate correlates of abstract reasoning and attention studied with positron emission tomography. Intelligence 12, 199-217]. While most early studies confirmed this hypothesis later research has revealed contradictory evidence or has identified some moderating variables like sex, task type, task complexity or brain area. Neuroscientific training studies suggest that neural efficiency also seems to be a function of the amount and quality of learning. From integrating this evidence we conclude that neural efficiency might arise when individuals are confronted with tasks of (subjectively) low to moderate task difficulty and it is mainly observable for frontal brain areas. This is true for easier novel cognitive tasks or after sufficient practice allowing participants to develop appropriate (efficient) strategies to deal with the task. In very complex tasks more able individuals seem to invest more cortical resources resulting in positive correlations between brain usage and cognitive ability. Based on the reviewed evidence we propose future empirical approaches in this field.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2009.04.001

Cites

149 of 149 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Neubauer, A. C., & Fink, A.
Affiliations
University of Graz (AT)
Corresponding author
Neubauer, Aljoscha C.
Venue
Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2009-07
Volume
33
Issue
7
Pages
1004-1023
ISSN
0149-7634 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2072541188
Cited by
878
References
149
Citations by year
2026: 115 · 2025: 69 · 2024: 49 · 2023: 60 · 2022: 63 · 2021: 65 · 2020: 48 · 2019: 58 · 2018: 50 · 2017: 40 · 2016: 45 · 2015: 42 · 2014: 39 · 2013: 37 · 2012: 32
FWCI
40.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Creativity in Education and Neuroscience
Keywords
neural efficiency hypothesis, intelligence, brain activation, cognitive task difficulty, frontal cortex, cortical glucose metabolism, cognitive training, learning, moderators, abstract thinking, attention
MeSH terms
Brain, Brain Mapping, Cognition, Female, Humans, Intelligence, Male, Models, Neurological, Practice, Psychological, Professional Competence, Sex Characteristics

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