User:JC1313/sandbox

This is the user sandbox of JC1313. A user sandbox is a subpage of the user's user page. It serves as a testing spot and page development space for the user and is not an encyclopedia article. Create or edit your own sandbox here.

Other sandboxes: Main sandbox | Template sandbox

This draft has been submitted and is currently awaiting review.

Brain scan based intelligence testing concerns the use of neuroimaging techniques to quantitatively evaluate human intelligence.

Intelligence

Modern technology has advanced such that scientists can gather information about human intelligence in profound ways. Neuroscience and neuroimaging are opening the doors to new methods of observing and analyzing the human mind.

Intelligence testing

Traditional methods quantify intelligence using the intelligence quotient, or the IQ. Using standardized tests, an individual is given a score, which can be used to predict things such as academic and workplace success.

Neural Bases of Intelligence

The varying techniques of imaging-based testing search for different signs of intelligence. The “types” of intelligence analyzed in this review were fluid intelligence (Gf), general intelligence (g), and crystallized intelligence (Gc). Early studies utilized information from patients with brain damage, noticing changes in intelligence scores that correlated to certain regions of the brain. As imaging technology has improved, so has the ability for deeper neuro-analysis. MRI studies have found that the volume of gray matter correlates to intelligence, providing evidence for generalizations made regarding brain/head-size and intelligence. Additionally, PET and fMRI studies have revealed more information regarding the functionality of certain regions of the brain. By recording and interpreting the brain activity of subjects as they complete a variety of tasks, researchers are able to draw connections between the types of task (and thus, the type of intelligence) that calls on particular areas of the brain. This is interesting as knowing how parts of the brain are utilized may reveal more information about the structure and hierarchy used in neural development. It also may provide interesting information regarding the pathways of neural signals as they navigate the nervous system. Image-based testing may allow researchers to discover why certain neurons are connected, if they are indeed aligned in a purposeful manner and consequently, how to repair such pathways when they are damaged.^[1]

In general, there have been two types of intelligence studies: psychometric and biological. Biological approaches make use of neuroimaging techniques and examine brain function. Psychometrics focus on mental abilities. Ian Deary and associates suggest that a greater overlap of these techniques will reveal new findings^[2] .

Pyschometrics

Psychometrics is a field of study specifically dedicated to psychological measurement and involves two main tasks: (i) constructing instruments and procedures for measurement; and (ii) the development and refinement of theoretical approaches to measurement. Brain-based intelligence tests are concerned with both of these aspects. Modern techniques have evolved to focus on a few biological characteristics: Brain ERPs, brain size, and speed of neural conduction. Various instruments have been employed to measure these things.

Brain event-related potentials (ERPs)

Brain ERPs allow for the "sequencing" of psychologically interesting processing. These event-related potentials are measured brain responses to specific stimuli, such as sensory, cognitive or motor events. ERPs, when compared to "mental speed," have shown a negative correlation with IQ^[3] .

Brain size

Neural conduction speed

Nerve conduction velocity (NCV) has been studied, giving varying results. Some have hypothesized that "higher intelligence is associated with better 'neural efficiency.'" A few studies suggested an association between nerve conduction velocity and scores on the Multidimensional Aptitude Battery (MAB). However, other studies have challenged these claims, finding little correlation between nerve conduction velocity and reaction time (RT)^[2].

Raven's Progressive Matrices Test

Neuroimaging techniques

PET

Positron emission tomography detects gamma rays as they are emitted from a tracer that has been injected into the body. It is useful in neuroimaging because of the assumption that areas of high radioactivity are associated with high brain activity.

CAT Scan

MRI and fMRI

Magnetic resonance imaging and functional magnetic resonance imaging have many applications when researching the human brain. A 2005 study examined the correlation between brain volume and intelligence. MRI-based measures of in vivo brain volume had reliabilities in the 0.90s. The study estimated that the correlation between brain volume and intelligence was 0.33.^[4]

Ethical Implications

Privacy and confidentiality are major concerns for neuroimaging studies. With high-resolution anatomical images, such as those generated by fMRI, it is possible to identify individual subjects, putting their personal privacy at risk. It is possible to create surface renderings of the brain and face from a volumetric MRI, which can be paired with photographs to identify the individual^[5] .

It is becoming more accepted that a neurobiological basis for intelligence exists (at least for reasoning and problem-solving). The success of these intelligence studies present ethical issues. A large concern for the general population is the issue of race and intelligence. While little variation has been found between racial groups, the public perception of intelligence studies has been negatively impacted by concerns of racism. It is important to consider the consequences of studies that investigate intelligence differences in population-groups (racial or ethnic) and if it is ethical to conduct these studies. A study suggesting that one group is biologically more intelligent than another may cause tension. This has made neuroscientists reluctant to investigate individual or group differences in intelligence, as they may be perceived as racist^[6] .

References

^ Gray, J. R., & Thompson, P. M. (2004). Neurobiology of intelligence: science and ethics. Nature reviews. Neuroscience, 5(6), 471–82. doi:10.1038/nrn1405
^ ^a ^b Deary, Ian J. (1 January 2000). "Testing versus understanding human intelligence". Psychology, Public Policy, and Law. 6 (1): 180–190. doi:10.1037//1076-8971.6.1.180. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
^ Deary, IJ (1997 Aug). "Neuroscience and human intelligence differences". Trends in neurosciences. 20 (8): 365–71. PMID 9246731. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)
^ Mcdaniel, M. (2005). Big-brained people are smarter: A meta-analysis of the relationship between in vivo brain volume and intelligence. Intelligence, 33(4), 337–346. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2004.11.005
^ Kulynych, J (2002 Dec). "Legal and ethical issues in neuroimaging research: human subjects protection, medical privacy, and the public communication of research results". Brain and cognition. 50 (3): 345–57. PMID 12480482. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
^ Gray, Jeremy R. (1 June 2004). "Neurobiology of intelligence: science and ethics". Nature Reviews Neuroscience. 5 (6): 471–482. doi:10.1038/nrn1405. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Request review at WP:AFC

Review waiting, please be patient.

This may take 3 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,557 pending submissions waiting for review.

If the submission is accepted, then this page will be moved into the article space.
If the submission is declined, then the reason will be posted here.
In the meantime, you can continue to improve this submission by editing normally.

Where to get help

If you need help editing or submitting your draft, please ask us a question at the AfC Help Desk or get live help from experienced editors. These venues are only for help with editing and the submission process, not to get reviews.
If you need feedback on your draft, or if the review is taking a lot of time, you can try asking for help on the talk page of a relevant WikiProject. Some WikiProjects are more active than others so a speedy reply is not guaranteed.

How to improve a draft

Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia – a basic overview on how to edit Wikipedia.
Help:Wikitext – how to use the markup
Help:Referencing for beginners – how to include references
Wikipedia:Article development – how to develop your article
Wikipedia:Writing better articles – how to improve your article
Wikipedia:Verifiability – make sure your article includes reliable third-party sources

You can also browse Wikipedia:Featured articles and Wikipedia:Good articles to find examples of Wikipedia's best writing on topics similar to your proposed article.

Improving your odds of a speedy review

To improve your odds of a faster review, tag your draft with relevant WikiProject tags using the button below. This will let reviewers know a new draft has been submitted in their area of interest. For instance, if you wrote about a female astronomer, you would want to add the Biography, Astronomy, and Women scientists tags.

Add tags to your draft

Editor resources

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Easy tools: Citation bot (help) | Advanced: Fix bare URLs

Reviewer tools

Instructions · What links here · sandbox (talk: + · bio) · (log) · Copyvios report · reFill · Citation Bot · (Search: Google, Bing, Wikipedia) · Submitted 11 years ago by JC1313 (talk: D · +) · Last edited 11 years ago by JC1313

Warning: This page should probably be moved to the Draft namespace.

[1] Gray, J. R., & Thompson, P. M. (2004). Neurobiology of intelligence: science and ethics. Nature reviews. Neuroscience, 5(6), 471–82. doi:10.1038/nrn1405

[deary1-2] Deary, Ian J. (1 January 2000). "Testing versus understanding human intelligence". Psychology, Public Policy, and Law. 6 (1): 180–190. doi:10.1037//1076-8971.6.1.180. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

[deary2-3] Deary, IJ (1997 Aug). "Neuroscience and human intelligence differences". Trends in neurosciences. 20 (8): 365–71. PMID 9246731. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)

[4] Mcdaniel, M. (2005). Big-brained people are smarter: A meta-analysis of the relationship between in vivo brain volume and intelligence. Intelligence, 33(4), 337–346. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2004.11.005

[5] Kulynych, J (2002 Dec). "Legal and ethical issues in neuroimaging research: human subjects protection, medical privacy, and the public communication of research results". Brain and cognition. 50 (3): 345–57. PMID 12480482. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

[6] Gray, Jeremy R. (1 June 2004). "Neurobiology of intelligence: science and ethics". Nature Reviews Neuroscience. 5 (6): 471–482. doi:10.1038/nrn1405. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]