98%
921
2 minutes
20
The neural efficiency hypothesis describes the phenomenon that brighter individuals show lower brain activation than less bright individuals when working on the same cognitive tasks. The present study investigated whether the brain activation-intelligence relationship still applies when more versus less intelligent individuals perform tasks with a comparable person-specific task difficulty. In an fMRI-study, 58 persons with lower ( = 28) or respectively higher ( = 30) intelligence worked on simple and difficult inductive reasoning tasks having the same person-specific task difficulty. Consequently, less bright individuals received sample-based easy and medium tasks, whereas bright subjects received sample-based medium and difficult tasks. This design also allowed a comparison of lower versus higher intelligent individuals when working on the same tasks (i.e. sample-based medium task difficulty). In line with expectations, differences in task performance and in brain activation were only found for the subset of tasks with the same sample-based task difficulty, but not when comparing tasks with the same person-specific task difficulty. These results suggest that neural efficiency reflects an (ability-dependent) adaption of brain activation to the respective task demands.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3907682 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2013.09.005 | DOI Listing |
J Neurosci
September 2025
Jefferson Moss Rehabilitation Research Institute, Thomas Jefferson University, Elkins Park, PA 19027.
Tool use is a complex motor planning problem. Prior research suggests that planning to use tools involves resolving competition between different tool-related action representations. We therefore reasoned that competition may also be exacerbated with tools for which the motions of the tool and the hand are incongruent (e.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFJMIR Res Protoc
September 2025
Moores Cancer Center, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, United States.
Background: Cancer screening nonadherence persists among adults who are deaf, deafblind, and hard of hearing (DDBHH). These barriers span individual, clinician, and health care system levels, contributing to difficulties understanding cancer information, accessing screening services, and following treatment directives. Critical communication barriers include ineffective patient-physician communication, limited access to American Sign Language (ASL) cancer information, misconceptions about medical procedures, insurance navigation difficulties, and intersectional barriers for multiply marginalized individuals.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFDev Sci
November 2025
Department of Psychology, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Teachers and parents often scaffold children to help others. Not all help is equally beneficial, however. We know very little about the ways in which children distribute different types of help.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFArch Phys Med Rehabil
September 2025
REVAL Rehabilitation Research Center, Faculty of Rehabilitation Sciences, Hasselt University, Hasselt, Belgium; UMSC, Hasselt-Pelt, Belgium. Electronic address:
Objective: To investigate the prevalence and magnitude of dual-task (DT) difficulties and the discriminative ability of three questionnaires evaluating perceived DT difficulties: the Dual-Tasking Questionnaire (DTQ), Dual-Task Screening-List (DTSL), and Dual-Task-Impact on Daily-life Activities Questionnaire (DIDA-Q).
Design: Multicenter, cross-sectional study SETTING: Persons with multiple sclerosis (pwMS) and healthy controls (HC) were recruited from 7 multiple sclerosis centers across 6 countries (Belgium, Chile, Italy, Israel, Spain, and Turkey).
Participants: A total of 540 participants: 175 with mild disability (mean EDSS: 2.
Front Hum Neurosci
August 2025
Department of Psychology, Northeastern University, Boston, MA, United States.
Mentalizing skills-the capacity to attribute mental states-play critical roles in word learning during typical language development. In autism, mentalizing difficulties may constrain word-learning pathways, limiting language-acquisition opportunities. We ask how autistic children encode and retrieve novel words and what drives individual differences.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF