Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 599

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 57 of the 57 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Neurophysiological Measures of Working Memory and Individual Differences in Cognitive Ability and Cognitive Style

Open access
Gevins, A.·2000·Cerebral Cortex

Abstract

The capacity to deliberately control attention in order to hold and manipulate information in working memory is critical to higher cognitive functions. This suggests that between-subject differences in general cognitive ability might be related to observable differences in the activity of brain systems that support working memory and attention control. To test this notion, electroencephalograms were recorded from 80 healthy young adults during spatial working memory tasks. Measures of task-related neurophysiological and behavioral variables were derived from these data and compared to scores on a test battery commonly used to assess general cognitive ability (the WAIS-R). Subjects who scored high on the psychometric test also tended to respond faster in the experimental tasks without any loss of accuracy. The amplitude of the late positive component of the event-related potential was larger in high-ability subjects, and the frontal midline theta component of the EEG signal was also selectively enhanced in this group under conditions of sustained performance and high working memory load. These results suggest that subjects who scored high on the WAIS-R were better able to focus and sustain attention to task performance. Changes in the EEG alpha rhythm in response to manipulations of task practice and load were also examined and compared between frontal and parietal regions. The results indicated that high-ability subjects developed strategies that made relatively greater use of parietal regions, whereas low-ability subjects relied more exclusively on frontal regions. Other analyses indicated that hemispheric asymmetries in alpha band measures distinguish between individuals with relatively high verbal aptitude and those with relatively high nonverbal aptitude. In particular, subjects with a verbal cognitive style tended to make greater use of the left parietal region during task performance, and subjects with a nonverbal style tended to make greater use of the right parietal region. These results help clarify relationships between task-related brain activity and individual differences in cognitive ability and style.

Overview

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 · 10.1093/cercor/10.9.829

Cites

57 of 57 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 57 references

Cited by

See all 599

Metadata

Authors
Gevins, A.
Venue
Cerebral Cortex
Published
2000-09-01
Volume
10
Issue
9
Pages
829-839
ISSN
  • 1047-3211 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2199
OpenAlex
W2128945905
Cited by
599
References
57
FWCI
19.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Neurophysiological Measures of Working Memory and Individual Differences in Cognitive Ability and Cognitive Style. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/cercor/10.9.829
The paper
Gevins, A. (2000). Neurophysiological Measures of Working Memory and Individual Differences in Cognitive Ability and Cognitive Style. Cerebral Cortex. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/10.9.829

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.