Cited by 126Cognitive Abilities and TestingGenetic Associations and EpidemiologyNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

Reaction time, inhibition, working memory and ‘delay aversion’ performance: genetic influences and their interpretation

Open access
KUNTSI, JONNA, ROGERS, HANNAH, SWINARD, GREER, BÖRGER, NORBERT, MEERE, JAAP van der, RIJSDIJK, FRUHLING, ASHERSON, PHILIP·2006·Psychological Medicine

Abstract

Background. For candidate endophenotypes to be useful for psychiatric genetic research, they first of all need to show significant genetic influences. To address the relative lack of previous data, we set to investigate the extent of genetic and environmental influences on performance in a set of theoretically driven cognitive-experimental tasks in a large twin sample. We further aimed to illustrate how test–retest reliability of the measures affects the estimates. Method. Four-hundred 7- to 9-year-old twin pairs were assessed individually on tasks measuring reaction time, inhibition, working memory and ‘delay aversion’ performance. Test–retest reliability data on some of the key measures were available from a previous study. Results. Several key measures of reaction time, inhibition and working-memory performance indicated a moderate degree of genetic influence. Combining data across theoretically related tasks increased the heritability estimates, as illustrated by the heritability estimates of 60% for mean reaction time and 50% for reaction-time variability. Psychometric properties (reliability or ceiling effects) had a substantial influence on the estimates for some measures. Conclusions. The data support the usefulness of several of the variables for endophenotype studies that aim to link genes to cognitive and motivational processes. Importantly, the data also illustrate specific conditions under which the true extent of genetic influences may be underestimated and hence the usefulness for genetic mapping studies compromised, and suggest ways to address this.

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 · 10.1017/s0033291706008580

Cites

28 of 28 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?

  • A twin study provided an RTV heritability estimate of 50%.

    “A twin study provided an RTV heritability estimate of 50% (Kuntsi et al. 2006)”
  • This is likely because the ceiling/floor effects of neuropsychological measures mean that impaired profiles for a given measure are more likely to emerge consistently in the same direction (e.g., decreased working memory accuracy in children with ADHD).

    “This is likely because the ceiling/floor effects of neuropsychological measures mean that impaired profiles for a given measure are more likely to emerge consistently in the same direction (e.g., decreased working memory accuracy in children with ADHD) 72 .”

    From Candidate diagnostic biomarkers for neurodevelopmental disorders in children and adolescents: a systematic review (2023) · cites this paper as [72]

    The Results (page unavailable) report that ceiling effects on a delay-aversion task artificially increased twin similarity and distorted genetic estimates. The Introduction and Method (pages unavailable) describe a general sample of twins, not a comparison of children with and without ADHD. Searches for floor effects and consistently directional impairment, including reduced working-memory accuracy in ADHD, found no passage addressing the claimed explanation. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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
KUNTSI, J., ROGERS, H., SWINARD, G., BÖRGER, N., MEERE, J. V. D., RIJSDIJK, F., & ASHERSON, P.
Affiliations
  • King's College London (GB)
  • University of Groningen (NL)
Corresponding author
KUNTSI, JONNA
Venue
Psychological Medicine
Published
2006-08-02
Volume
36
Issue
11
Pages
1613-1624
ISSN
  • 0033-2917 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-8978
OpenAlex
W2149467627
Cited by
126
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 6
FWCI
10.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychological Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Wellcome Trust (GR070345MF, 070345)
  • Innovative Research Group Project of the National Natural Science Foundation of China
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Keywords
heritability, endophenotypes, reaction time, inhibition, working memory, delay aversion, cognitive performance, test-retest reliability, twin studies, children, gene mapping
MeSH terms
Child, Humans, Individuality, Inhibition, Psychological, Intelligence, Memory, Short-Term, Motivation, Neuropsychological Tests, Phenotype, Psychometrics, Reaction Time, Reinforcement Schedule, Social Environment, Twins, Dizygotic, Twins, Monozygotic, 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