NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL EVIDENCE FOR EXISTENCE OF CEREBRAL AREAS CRITICAL TO PERFORMANCE OF INTELLIGENCE TASKS
NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL EVIDENCE FOR EXISTENCE OF CEREBRAL AREAS CRITICAL TO PERFORMANCE OF INTELLIGENCE TASKS
复制标题
DOI：
10.1093/brain/96.4.715
复制
发表时间：
1973-01-01
期刊：
影响因子：
14.5
通讯作者：
SPINNLER, H
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
BASSO, A;DERENZI, E;SPINNLER, H
珀西（1964，1969）认为，心理学家提出的关于智力本质的理论可能与理解智力技能在大脑皮层中是如何组织的有关。如果智力被设想为由一种普遍的、高级的能力（“g”因素）和一些附属因素组成，这种能力进入到每一种智力表现中，而这些附属因素则具体到每一个单独的测验或一组测验中（斯皮尔曼，1923），那么，在先验的基础上，关于智力与脑和脑损伤的关系，可以考虑两种假设。根据第一种观点，受拉什利（Lashley，1929）提出的等势性和集体作用原理的启发，一般能力在整个皮层覆盖层上弥散地表现出来，大脑任何区域的损伤都会导致智力下降。其严重程度取决于病变的大小，但不取决于病变的部位，除非可能是次要因素对特定性能的贡献。然而，等级观点也同样符合这样一种假设：在进化过程中，大脑的某些区域在维持神经元活动方面发挥了主导作用，甚至是排他性的作用，而神经元活动又介导了一般的高级能力。从这一假设可以得出结论，对这一区域的损害将反映在任何类型的智力表现的中断上，而其他区域的损害最多只会损害由从属能力辅助的某些特定任务。（Thurstone，1938），因此，承认单独的皮层定位似乎是合乎逻辑的。因此，不同部位的损伤将导致不同智力表现的紊乱，任何试图比较具有不同局部损伤的群体及其一般智力效率的尝试都是毫无意义的。
PERCY (1964, 1969) has suggested that the theories proposed by psychologists on the nature of intelligence may be relevant to understanding how intellectual skills are organized in the cerebral cortex. If intelligence is envisaged to be made up of a general, superordinate ability (" g" factor), which enters into every Intellectual performance, and of subsidiary factors specific to each individual test or group of tests (Spearman, 1923), then on an a priori basis two hypotheses regarding the relation of intelligence to brain and brain-damage may be considered. According to the first, which is inspired by the principles of equipotentiality and mass action set out by Lashley (1929), general ability is diffusely represented on the whole cortical mantle and injury to any region of the brain produces an intellectual decrement. Its severity is dependent on the size but not on the site of the lesion, except possibly for the contribution of subordinate factors to particular performance. A hierarchical view is, however, equally compatible with the hypothesis that in the course of evolution some area of the brain has gained a predominant, or even an exclusive role in sustaining the neuronal activity which mediates the general, superordinate ability. It follows from this assumption that damage to such an area would be reflected in the disruption of any type of intellectual performance, whereas lesion of other regions would at the most impair some specific task, subserved by a subordinate ability.The main alternative to the hierarchic theory is provided by the view that intelligence consists of distinct primary mental abilities (Thurstone, 1938), for which it seems logical to admit separate cortical localizations. Injury to different areas will, consequently, result in the derangement of different intellectual performances and any attempt to compare groups with differently localized lesions and their general mental efficiency would be meaningless.