What can individual differences tell us about the specialization of function?

Rabaglia, Cristina D.; Marcus, Gary; Lane, Sean P.

doi:10.1080/02643294.2011.609813

Cited by 16 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A significant amount of evidence suggests that in humans, the scores obtained in different cognitive tests correlate with each other, so that a global factor, called “g” for general intelligence, accounts for an important part of total variance (at least 40 percent, Deary et al, 2010). This suggests that cognitive abilities are not totally independent of each other, sharing (at least partly) a common mechanism (e.g., Ebisch et al, 2012 but see also Rabaglia et al, 2011). In fact, more and more evidence indicates that general cognitive abilities originate from a network of interconnected cortical areas (Deary et al, 2010).…”

Section: Intra-specific Analysesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reconsidering the evolution of brain, cognition, and behavior in birds and mammals

Willemet¹

2013

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite decades of research, some of the most basic issues concerning the extraordinarily complex brains and behavior of birds and mammals, such as the factors responsible for the diversity of brain size and composition, are still unclear. This is partly due to a number of conceptual and methodological issues. Determining species and group differences in brain composition requires accounting for the presence of taxon-cerebrotypes and the use of precise statistical methods. The role of allometry in determining brain variables should be revised. In particular, bird and mammalian brains appear to have evolved in response to a variety of selective pressures influencing both brain size and composition. “Brain” and “cognition” are indeed meta-variables, made up of the variables that are ecologically relevant and evolutionarily selected. External indicators of species differences in cognition and behavior are limited by the complexity of these differences. Indeed, behavioral differences between species and individuals are caused by cognitive and affective components. Although intra-species variability forms the basis of species evolution, some of the mechanisms underlying individual differences in brain and behavior appear to differ from those between species. While many issues have persisted over the years because of a lack of appropriate data or methods to test them; several fallacies, particularly those related to the human brain, reflect scientists' preconceptions. The theoretical framework on the evolution of brain, cognition, and behavior in birds and mammals should be reconsidered with these biases in mind.

show abstract

Section: Intra-specific Analysesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reconsidering the evolution of brain, cognition, and behavior in birds and mammals

Willemet¹

2013

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The brain is a complex nexus of hubs and networks with no single part generally identifiable as the “center of x ” (Sporns, 2013; Uttal, 2015). The mind is likewise divided (Van Orden & Paap, 1997): Godfrey Thomson formulated a distributed processing model of intellectual ability a century ago (Bartholomew, Deary, & Lawn, 2009), echoed in recent discussions of the “positive manifold” (Anderson, 2010; Van Der Maas et al, 2006) and “neural reuse” (Rabaglia, Marcus, & Lane, 2011). For those with intellectual disabilities, the positive manifold is an imperfect one of subtle distributed inefficiencies.…”

Section: Distributed Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Neuroenergetics

Killeen

Russell

Tannock

2016

Curr Dir Psychol Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The brain uses 20% of the body’s energy. The processes delivering that energy to neurons can fail in numerous ways. The neuroenergetics theory draws out the implications of failure in the supply chain between blood capillaries and neurons. The theory is implemented as a diffusion model that yields response-latency distributions, error rates, and other predictions for typical individuals engaged in focused activities and for special populations such as those with neurodevelopmental disorders. It predicts the effects of stimulants, trial spacing, and fatigue. Here, the implications of energetic insufficiency are explored in the context of the positive manifold of abilities, disabilities, and psychiatric comorbidities.

show abstract

“…There is, however, the argument from the ‘positive manifold’: the fact that individual differences in cognitive ability tend to be positively correlated across domains, suggesting the existence of a domain‐general factor underlying intelligence (e.g., Spearman's g ) of the sort that massive modularity would seem to preclude. In reply to this argument, post‐Fodorian modularity theorists note that functionally specialized mechanisms are likely to share parts, and that the observed correlations in task performance within individuals and across domains may derive from this overlap . Hence, the existence of the positive manifold does little to undermine the idea of modularity in high‐level cognition.…”

Section: The Case Against Modularitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Modularity and mental architecture

Robbins

2013

WIRES Cognitive Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Debates about the modularity of cognitive architecture have been ongoing for at least the past three decades, since the publication of Fodor's landmark book The Modularity of Mind. According to Fodor, modularity is essentially tied to informational encapsulation, and as such is only found in the relatively low-level cognitive systems responsible for perception and language. According to Fodor's critics in the evolutionary psychology camp, modularity simply reflects the fine-grained functional specialization dictated by natural selection, and it characterizes virtually all aspects of cognitive architecture, including high-level systems for judgment, decision making, and reasoning. Though both of these perspectives on modularity have garnered support, the current state of evidence and argument suggests that a broader skepticism about modularity may be warranted. WIREs Cogn Sci 2013, 4:641-649. doi: 10.1002/wcs.1255 CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The author has declared no conflicts of interest for this article. For further resources related to this article, please visit the WIREs website.

show abstract

What can individual differences tell us about the specialization of function?

Cited by 16 publications

References 35 publications

Reconsidering the evolution of brain, cognition, and behavior in birds and mammals

Reconsidering the evolution of brain, cognition, and behavior in birds and mammals

Neuroenergetics

Modularity and mental architecture

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About