Structural architecture and brain network efficiency link polygenic scores to intelligence

Intelligence is highly heritable. Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have shown that thousands of alleles contribute to variation in intelligence with small effect sizes. Polygenic scores (PGS), which combine these effects into one genetic summary measure, are increasingly used to investigate polygenic effects in independent samples. Whereas PGS explain a considerable amount of variance in intelligence, it is largely unknown how brain structure and function mediate this relationship. Here, we show that individuals with higher PGS for educational attainment and intelligence had higher scores on cognitive tests, larger surface area, and more efficient fiber connectivity derived by graph theory. Fiber network efficiency as well as the surface of brain areas partly located in parieto-frontal regions were found to mediate the relationship between PGS and cognitive performance. These findings are a crucial step forward in decoding the neurogenetic underpinnings of intelligence, as they identify specific regional networks that link polygenic predisposition to intelligence.

Fluctuating asymmetry in brain structure and general intelligence in 73-year-olds

Fluctuating body asymmetry is theorized to indicate developmental instability, and to have small positive associations with low socioeconomic status (SES). Previous studies have reported small negative associations between fluctuating body asymmetry and cognitive functioning, but relationships between fluctuating brain asymmetry and cognitive functioning remain unclear. The present study investigated the association between general intelligence (a latent factor derived from a factor analysis on 13 cognitive tests) and the fluctuating asymmetry of four structural measures of brain hemispheric asymmetry: cortical surface area, cortical volume, cortical thickness, and white matter fractional anisotropy. The sample comprised members of the Lothian Birth Cohort 1936 (LBC1936, N = 636, mean age = 72.9 years). Two methods were used to calculate structural hemispheric asymmetry: in the first method, regions contributed equally to the overall asymmetry score; in the second method, regions contributed proportionally to their size. When regions contributed equally, cortical thickness asymmetry was negatively associated with general intelligence (β = −0.18,p < .001). There was no association between cortical thickness asymmetry and childhood SES, suggesting that other mechanisms are involved in the thickness asymmetry-intelligence association. Across all cortical metrics, asymmetry of regions identified by the parieto-frontal integration theory (P-FIT) was not more strongly associated with general intelligence than non-P-FIT asymmetry. When regions contributed proportionally, there were no associations between general intelligence and any of the asymmetry measures. The implications of these findings, and of different methods of calculating structural hemispheric asymmetry, are discussed.

•

Previous work has shown links between cortical asymmetry and intelligence.

•

In the current study, two methods of calculating global cortical hemispheric asymmetry were compared.

•

Equal region contribution: the association between cortical thickness asymmetry and general intelligence was β = −0.18.

•

Proportional region contribution: no associations between three measures of cortical asymmetry and general intelligence.

The neural code of intelligence: From correlation to causation

Research into the neural underpinning of intelligence has mainly adopted a construct perspective: trying to find structural and functional brain characteristics that would accommodate the psychological concept of g. Few attempts have been made to explain intelligence exclusively based on brain characteristics - the brain perspective. From a methodological viewpoint the brain intelligence relation has been studied by means of correlational and interventional studies. The later providing a causal elucidation of the brain - intelligence relation. The best neuro-anatomical predictor of intelligence is brain volume showing a modest positive correlation with g, explaining between 9 to 16% of variance. The most likely explanation was that larger brains, containing more neurons, have a greater computational power and in that way allow more complex cognitive processing. Correlations with brain surface, thickness, convolution and callosal shape showed less consistent patterns. The development of diffusion tensor imaging has allowed researchers to look also into the microstructure of brain tissue. Consistently observed was a positively correlation between white matter integrity and intelligence, supporting the idea that efficient information transfer between hemispheres and brain areas is crucial for higher intellectual competence. Based on functional studies of the brain intelligence relationship three theories have been put forward: the neural efficiency, the P-FIT and the multi demand (MD) system theory. On the other hand, The Network Neuroscience Theory of g, based on methods from mathematics, physics, and computer science, is an example for the brain perspective on neurobiological underpinning of intelligence. In this framework network flexibility and dynamics provide the foundation for general intelligence. With respect to intervention studies the most promising results have been achieved with noninvasive brain stimulation and behavioral training providing tentative support for findings put forward by the correlational approach. To date the best consensus based on the diversity of results reported would be that g is predominantly determined by lateral prefrontal attentional control of structured sensory episodes in posterior brain areas. The capacity of flexible transitions between these network states represents the essence of intelligence - g.

Intelligence and uncertainty: Implications of hierarchical predictive processing for the neuroscience of cognitive ability

Hierarchical predictive processing (PP) has recently emerged as a candidate theoretical paradigm for neurobehavioral research. To date, PP has found support through its success in offering compelling explanations for a number of perceptual, cognitive, and psychiatric phenomena, as well as from accumulating neurophysiological evidence. However, its implications for understanding intelligence and its neural basis have received relatively little attention. The present review outlines the key tenets and evidence for PP, and assesses its implications for intelligence research. It is argued that PP suggests indeterminacy as a unifying principle from which to investigate the cognitive hierarchy and brain-ability correlations. The resulting framework not only accommodates prominent psychometric models of intelligence, but also incorporates key findings from neuroanatomical and functional activation research, and motivates new predictions via the mechanisms of prediction-error minimization. Because PP also suggests unique neural signatures of experience-dependent activity, it may also help clarify environmental contributions to intellectual development. It is concluded that PP represents a plausible, integrative framework that could enhance progress in the neuroscience of intelligence.