Default mode
Can brain activity during hard tasks predict general intelligence?
Open access · cc by · source: Europe PMC
Brain activation patterns recorded while people did a demanding working-memory task predicted their general cognitive ability about twice as well as resting brain scans did.
Study at a glance
- Design
- Cross-sectional — Cross-validated predictive modelling of a general-ability factor from 15 task-fMRI contrast maps (and resting-state connectomes) in one large dataset.
- N
- N=967 · 967 adults in the task-fMRI prediction analysis; 1,192 for building the ability factor; 903 for the resting-state comparison.
- Population
- Healthy young adults from the Human Connectome Project 1200 release
- Outcome
- Cross-validated correlation between predicted and actual general cognitive ability
Structured fields used in claim comparison tables when every cited study has a complete layer.
Key findings
The 2-back versus 0-back working-memory contrast gave the best prediction, correlating 0.50 with actual ability, whereas resting-state connectomes reached only r = .26; 13 of the 15 task contrasts outperformed rest. Tasks with more executive demand (working memory, relational reasoning, math versus story) did best. Across contrasts, mean frontoparietal activation strongly predicted how useful a task was (r = .68), and frontoparietal activation plus default-mode deactivation together tracked prediction accuracy closely (r = .82).
Methodology
Using Human Connectome Project data, the researchers built a general cognitive ability score from 10 cognitive tests, then trained models to predict that score from whole-brain activation maps for 15 contrasts across seven scanner tasks (such as working memory, relational reasoning and language). They used 10-fold cross-validation, keeping family members in the same fold, and compared the task-based results with the same model applied to resting-state connectivity. Finally they asked whether a task's ability to predict depended on how strongly it activated the frontoparietal network and deactivated the default mode network.
Limitations
Even the best model explained only 28% of the variance in ability, so most individual differences remain unexplained. The tasks were those HCP happened to include, not ones designed to predict ability, and the sample is healthy young adults, so it may not generalise to children, older adults or patients. Prediction is correlational: a pattern that predicts ability does not show which regions cause it, and the differences between the top executive tasks were modest.
How this study connects
Role on claims
Each row is a claim on a concept or method page where this paper supports, challenges, or qualifies the statement. Roles are hand-checked — not a model guess.
Not yet placed on a claim. This paper has study layers, but no concept page yet cites it as support, challenge, or qualifier.
Related papers in this topic
Same topic cluster — not a recommendation engine.