Hampshire, A., Parkin, B., Highfield, R. and Owen, A.M. 2014. Brief response to Ashton and colleagues regarding Fractionating Human Intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences. 60, pp. 16-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.11.013
| Title | Brief response to Ashton and colleagues regarding Fractionating Human Intelligence |
|---|---|
| Authors | Hampshire, A., Parkin, B., Highfield, R. and Owen, A.M. |
| Abstract | Ashton and colleagues concede in their response (Ashton, Lee, & Visser, in this issue), that neuroimaging methods provide a relatively unambiguous measure of the levels to which cognitive tasks co-recruit dif- ferent functional brain networks (task mixing). It is also evident from their response that they now accept that task mixing differs from the blended models of the classic literature. However, they still have not grasped how the neuroimaging data can help to constrain models of the neural basis of higher order ‘g’. Specifically, they claim that our analyses are invalid as we assume that functional networks have uncorrelated capacities. They use the simple analogy of a set of exercises that recruit multiple muscle groups to varying extents and highlight the fact that individual differences in strength may correlate across muscle groups. Contrary to their claim, we did not assume in the original article (Hampshire, High- field, Parkin, & Owen, 2012) that functional networks had uncorrelated capacities; instead, the analyses were specifically designed to estimate the scale of those correlations, which we referred to as spatially ‘diffuse’ factors |
| Keywords | General intelligence |
| Task mixing | |
| Blended models | |
| Neuroimaging | |
| Journal | Personality and Individual Differences |
| Journal citation | 60, pp. 16-17 |
| ISSN | 0191-8869 |
| Year | 2014 |
| Publisher | Elsevier |
| Digital Object Identifier (DOI) | https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.11.013 |
| Publication dates | |
| Published | 2014 |
| Published | 16 Dec 2013 |