↓ Skip to main content

“Executive functions” cannot be distinguished from general intelligence: two variations on a single theme within a symphony of latent variance

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, October 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
70 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
“Executive functions” cannot be distinguished from general intelligence: two variations on a single theme within a symphony of latent variance
Published in
Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, October 2014
DOI 10.3389/fnbeh.2014.00369
Pubmed ID
Authors

Donald R. Royall, Raymond F. Palmer

Abstract

The empirical foundation of executive control function (ECF) remains controversial. We have employed structural equation models (SEM) to explicitly distinguish domain-specific variance in executive function (EF) performance from memory (MEM) and shared cognitive performance variance, i.e., Spearman's "g." EF does not survive adjustment for both MEM and g in a well fitting model of data obtained from non-demented older persons (N = 193). Instead, the variance in putative EF measures is attributable only to g, and related to functional status only through a fraction of that construct (i.e., "d"). d is a homolog of the latent variable δ, which we have previously associated specifically with the Default Mode Network (DMN). These findings undermine the validity of EF and its putative association with the frontal lobe. ECF may have no existence independent of general intelligence, and no functionally salient association with the frontal lobe outside of that structure's contribution to the DMN.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 70 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 17%
Researcher 12 17%
Student > Master 10 14%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Professor 5 7%
Other 11 16%
Unknown 14 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 38 54%
Neuroscience 6 9%
Social Sciences 5 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 1%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 15 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 November 2014.
All research outputs
#18,383,471
of 22,770,070 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
#2,597
of 3,161 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#186,723
of 260,974 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
#70
of 94 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,770,070 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,161 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.4. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 260,974 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 94 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.