Signatures of multiple processes contributing to fluid reasoning performance

Individual differences in visual search: A systematic review of the link between visual search performance and traits or abilities

Visual search (VS) comprises a class of tasks that we typically perform several times during a day and requires intentionally scanning (with or without moving the eyes) the environment for a specific target (be it an object or a feature) among distractor stimuli. Experimental research in lab-based or real-world settings has offered insight into its underlying neurocognitive mechanisms from a nomothetic point of view. A lesser-known but rapidly growing body of quasi-experimental and correlational research has explored the link between individual differences and VS performance. This combines different research traditions and covers a wide range of individual differences in studies deploying a vast array of VS tasks. As such, it is a challenge to determine whether any associations highlighted in single studies are robust when considering the wider literature. However, clarifying such relationships systematically and comprehensively would help build more accurate models of VS, and it would highlight promising directions for future research. This systematic review provides an up to date and comprehensive synthesis of the existing literature investigating associations between common indices of performance in VS tasks and measures of individual differences mapped onto four categories of cognitive abilities (short-term working memory, fluid reasoning, visual processing and processing speed) and seven categories of traits (Big Five traits, trait anxiety and autistic traits). Consistent associations for both traits (in particular, conscientiousness, autistic traits and trait anxiety - the latter limited to emotional stimuli) and cognitive abilities (particularly visual processing) were identified. Overall, however, informativeness of future studies would benefit from checking and reporting the reliability of all measurement tools, applying multiplicity correction, using complementary techniques, study preregistration and testing why, rather than only if, a robust relation between certain individual differences and VS performance exists.

Fluid Intelligence Emerges from Representing Relations

Based on recent findings in cognitive neuroscience and psychology as well as computational models of working memory and reasoning, I argue that fluid intelligence (fluid reasoning) can amount to representing in the mind the key relation(s) for the task at hand. Effective representation of relations allows for enormous flexibility of thinking but depends on the validity and robustness of the dynamic patterns of argument-object (role-filler) bindings, which encode relations in the brain. Such a reconceptualization of the fluid intelligence construct allows for the simplification and purification of its models, tests, and potential brain mechanisms.

Does reasoning training improve fluid reasoning and academic achievement for children and adolescents? A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Studies of children and adolescents suggest that reasoning training may improve both reasoning and academic achievement, but evidence and systematic evaluation of this research is limited. Accordingly, this paper provides a systematic review of the literature on reasoning training in order to describe current methods and evaluate their efficacy.

METHOD

A systematic search identified eleven articles-published between 1996 and 2016-that reported findings from thirteen separate studies of reasoning training effects on fluid reasoning (Gf) and academic achievement in children and adolescents. Specific Gf outcomes examined were analogical, deductive, inductive, nonverbal, and/or relational reasoning ability. Specific academic achievement outcomes examined were math and reading achievement. This paper reviewed studies utilizing both computerized and non-computerized methods of Gf training.

FINDINGS

Findings from the review show that reasoning training improves Gf (near transfer effects). Although less conclusive, when considered on balance, evidence suggests that reasoning training also improves academic achievement (far transfer effects).

CONCLUSIONS

Research is needed to parameterize the effects of Gf training on academic achievement, and in particular to identify moderators of training efficacy on academic outcomes. Limitations and directions for future research are discussed.