Limits...
Executive function and fluid intelligence after frontal lobe lesions.

Roca M, Parr A, Thompson R, Woolgar A, Torralva T, Antoun N, Manes F, Duncan J - Brain (2009)

Bottom Line: These deficits appear on a background of reduced fluid intelligence, best measured with tests of novel problem solving.Deficits are not fully explained by fluid intelligence and the data suggest association with lesions in the right anterior frontal cortex.Understanding of frontal lobe deficits may be clarified by separating reduced fluid intelligence, important in most or all tasks, from other more specific impairments and their associated regions of damage.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Institute of Cognitive Neurology (INECO), Buenos Aires, Argentina.

ABSTRACT
Many tests of specific 'executive functions' show deficits after frontal lobe lesions. These deficits appear on a background of reduced fluid intelligence, best measured with tests of novel problem solving. For a range of specific executive tests, we ask how far frontal deficits can be explained by a general fluid intelligence loss. For some widely used tests, e.g. Wisconsin Card Sorting, we find that fluid intelligence entirely explains frontal deficits. When patients and controls are matched on fluid intelligence, no further frontal deficit remains. For these tasks too, deficits are unrelated to lesion location within the frontal lobe. A second group of tasks, including tests of both cognitive (e.g. Hotel, Proverbs) and social (Faux Pas) function, shows a different pattern. Deficits are not fully explained by fluid intelligence and the data suggest association with lesions in the right anterior frontal cortex. Understanding of frontal lobe deficits may be clarified by separating reduced fluid intelligence, important in most or all tasks, from other more specific impairments and their associated regions of damage.

Show MeSH

Related in: MedlinePlus

Experiment 2. Regressions on fluid intelligence for all tasks showing significant difference between patients and controls. Symbols and regressions as Fig. 3.
© Copyright Policy - creative-commons
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC2801324&req=5

Figure 4: Experiment 2. Regressions on fluid intelligence for all tasks showing significant difference between patients and controls. Symbols and regressions as Fig. 3.

Mentions: For these six tasks, scatterplots relating performance to Culture Fair score are shown in Fig. 4. Contrary to the results from Experiment 1, these scatterplots suggest some difference between patients and controls even when correcting for the difference in IQ (cf. Fig. 1B). As before, additional t-tests compared patients and controls after adjusting for IQ scores. For the Iowa Gambling Task, adjustment removed the significant patient–control difference, t(40) = 1.07, P = 0.29. For the remaining five tasks, however, significant differences remained even after such adjustment (Table 2).Figure 4


Executive function and fluid intelligence after frontal lobe lesions.

Roca M, Parr A, Thompson R, Woolgar A, Torralva T, Antoun N, Manes F, Duncan J - Brain (2009)

Experiment 2. Regressions on fluid intelligence for all tasks showing significant difference between patients and controls. Symbols and regressions as Fig. 3.
© Copyright Policy - creative-commons
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC2801324&req=5

Figure 4: Experiment 2. Regressions on fluid intelligence for all tasks showing significant difference between patients and controls. Symbols and regressions as Fig. 3.
Mentions: For these six tasks, scatterplots relating performance to Culture Fair score are shown in Fig. 4. Contrary to the results from Experiment 1, these scatterplots suggest some difference between patients and controls even when correcting for the difference in IQ (cf. Fig. 1B). As before, additional t-tests compared patients and controls after adjusting for IQ scores. For the Iowa Gambling Task, adjustment removed the significant patient–control difference, t(40) = 1.07, P = 0.29. For the remaining five tasks, however, significant differences remained even after such adjustment (Table 2).Figure 4

Bottom Line: These deficits appear on a background of reduced fluid intelligence, best measured with tests of novel problem solving.Deficits are not fully explained by fluid intelligence and the data suggest association with lesions in the right anterior frontal cortex.Understanding of frontal lobe deficits may be clarified by separating reduced fluid intelligence, important in most or all tasks, from other more specific impairments and their associated regions of damage.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Institute of Cognitive Neurology (INECO), Buenos Aires, Argentina.

ABSTRACT
Many tests of specific 'executive functions' show deficits after frontal lobe lesions. These deficits appear on a background of reduced fluid intelligence, best measured with tests of novel problem solving. For a range of specific executive tests, we ask how far frontal deficits can be explained by a general fluid intelligence loss. For some widely used tests, e.g. Wisconsin Card Sorting, we find that fluid intelligence entirely explains frontal deficits. When patients and controls are matched on fluid intelligence, no further frontal deficit remains. For these tasks too, deficits are unrelated to lesion location within the frontal lobe. A second group of tasks, including tests of both cognitive (e.g. Hotel, Proverbs) and social (Faux Pas) function, shows a different pattern. Deficits are not fully explained by fluid intelligence and the data suggest association with lesions in the right anterior frontal cortex. Understanding of frontal lobe deficits may be clarified by separating reduced fluid intelligence, important in most or all tasks, from other more specific impairments and their associated regions of damage.

Show MeSH
Related in: MedlinePlus