Cited by 399Cognitive Abilities and TestingNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesCognitive and developmental aspects of mathematical skills

Fractionating Human Intelligence

Open access
Hampshire, Adam, Highfield, Roger R., Parkin, Beth L., Owen, Adrian M.·2012·Neuron

Abstract

What makes one person more intellectually able than another? Can the entire distribution of human intelligence be accounted for by just one general factor? Is intelligence supported by a single neural system? Here, we provide a perspective on human intelligence that takes into account how general abilities or "factors" reflect the functional organization of the brain. By comparing factor models of individual differences in performance with factor models of brain functional organization, we demonstrate that different components of intelligence have their analogs in distinct brain networks. Using simulations based on neuroimaging data, we show that the higher-order factor "g" is accounted for by cognitive tasks corecruiting multiple networks. Finally, we confirm the independence of these components of intelligence by dissociating them using questionnaire variables. We propose that intelligence is an emergent property of anatomically distinct cognitive systems, each of which has its own capacity.

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.neuron.2012.06.022

Cites

4 of 4 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

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. Carroll, J.B. (1993). Human Cognitive Abilities: A Survey of Factor-Analytic Studies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
  2. Cattell, R.B., and Horn, J.L. (1978). A check on the theory of fluid and crystal- ized intelligence with descriptions of new subtest designs. Journal of Educational Measurement 15, 139-164.
  3. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, Second Edition (Hillsdale, NJ:: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates).
  4. Donaldson, D., and Bucknar, R. (2001). Effective paradigm design. In Functional MRI: An Introduction to Methods, P. Jezzard, P.M. Matthews, and S.M. Smith, eds. (New York: Oxford University Press), pp. 177-195.
  5. Duncan, J. (2005). Prefrontal cortex and Spearman's g. In Measuring the Mind: Speed, Control, and Age, J. Duncan, L.H. Phillips, and P. McLeod, eds. (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 249-272.
  6. Hampshire, A., and Owen, A.M. (2010). Clinical studies of attention and learning. In Attention and Associative Learning, C.J. Mitchell and M.E. Le Pelley, eds. (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 385-406.
  7. Mackintosh, N.J. (1998). IQ and Human Intelligence (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
  8. Petrides, M. (2005). Lateral prefrontal cortex: architectonic and functional organization. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 360, 781-795.
  9. Woolgar, A., Parr, A., Cusack, R., Thompson, R., Nimmo-Smith, I., Torralva, T., Roca, M., Antoun, N., Manes, F., and Duncan, J. (2010). Fluid intelligence loss linked to restricted regions of damage within frontal and parietal cortex. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 107, 14899-14902.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hampshire, A., Highfield, R. R., Parkin, B. L., & Owen, A. M.
Affiliations
  • Western University (CA)
  • Science Museum (GB)
Corresponding author
Hampshire, Adam
Venue
Neuron
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-12
Volume
76
Issue
6
Pages
1225-1237
ISSN
0896-6273 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2088055785
Cited by
399
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 25 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 32 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 31 · 2016: 58 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 20 · 2012: 2
FWCI
24.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Neuron (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • WestminsterResearch (University of Westminster) (acceptedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Mauritius Research Council (U1055.01.002.00001.01)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Cognitive and developmental aspects of mathematical skills
Keywords
human intelligence, individual differences in intelligence, brain functional organization, brain networks, cognitive systems, factor models
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Brain, Brain Mapping, Cortical Synchronization, Female, Humans, Intelligence, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Middle Aged, Models, Neurological, Models, Psychological, Nerve Net, Neural Pathways, Pilot Projects, Cohort Studies, Young Adult

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