Open AccessArticle
Network Models for Cognitive Development and Intelligence
J. Intell. 2017, 5(2), 16; doi:10.3390/jintelligence5020016 -
Abstract
Cronbach’s (1957) famous division of scientific psychology into two disciplines is still apparent for the fields of cognition (general mechanisms) and intelligence (dimensionality of individual differences). The welcome integration of the two fields requires the construction of mechanistic models of cognition and cognitive
[...] Read more.
Cronbach’s (1957) famous division of scientific psychology into two disciplines is still apparent for the fields of cognition (general mechanisms) and intelligence (dimensionality of individual differences). The welcome integration of the two fields requires the construction of mechanistic models of cognition and cognitive development that explain key phenomena in individual differences research. In this paper, we argue that network modeling is a promising approach to integrate the processes of cognitive development and (developing) intelligence into one unified theory. Network models are defined mathematically, describe mechanisms on the level of the individual, and are able to explain positive correlations among intelligence subtest scores—the empirical basis for the well-known g-factor—as well as more complex factorial structures. Links between network modeling, factor modeling, and item response theory allow for a common metric, encompassing both discrete and continuous characteristics, for cognitive development and intelligence. Full article
Figures

Figure 1

Open AccessArticle
Missing the Wood for the Wrong Trees: On the Difficulty of Defining the Complexity of Complex Problem Solving Scenarios
J. Intell. 2017, 5(2), 15; doi:10.3390/jintelligence5020015 -
Abstract
In this paper we discuss how the lack of a common framework in Complex Problem Solving (CPS) creates a major hindrance to a productive integration of findings and insights gained in its 40+-year history of research. We propose a framework that anchors complexity
[...] Read more.
In this paper we discuss how the lack of a common framework in Complex Problem Solving (CPS) creates a major hindrance to a productive integration of findings and insights gained in its 40+-year history of research. We propose a framework that anchors complexity within the tri-dimensional variable space of Person, Task and Situation. Complexity is determined by the number of information cues that need to be processed in parallel. What constitutes an information cue is dependent on the kind of task, the system or CPS scenario used and the task environment (i.e., situation) in which the task is performed. Difficulty is conceptualised as a person’s subjective reflection of complexity. Using an existing data set of N = 294 university students’ problem solving performances, we test the assumption derived from this framework that particular system features such as numbers of variables (NoV) or numbers of relationships (NoR) are inappropriate indicators of complexity. We do so by contrasting control performance across four systems that differ in these attributes. Results suggest that for controlling systems (task) with semantically neutral embedment (situation), the maximum number of dependencies any of the output variables has is a promising indicator of this task’s complexity. Full article
Figures

Figure 1

Open AccessArticle
Intelligence and Cognitive Development: Three Sides of the Same Coin
J. Intell. 2017, 5(2), 14; doi:10.3390/jintelligence5020014 -
Abstract
Research on intelligence, mainly based on correlational and factor-analytical work, research on cognitive development, and research in cognitive psychology are not to be opposed as has traditionally been the case, but are pursuing the same goal, that is, understand how the human being
[...] Read more.
Research on intelligence, mainly based on correlational and factor-analytical work, research on cognitive development, and research in cognitive psychology are not to be opposed as has traditionally been the case, but are pursuing the same goal, that is, understand how the human being adapts to his/her own, complex environment. Each tradition of research has been focusing on one source of variation, namely situational differences for cognitive psychology, individual differences for psychometrics, and age differences for developmental psychology, while usually neglecting the two other sources of variation. The present paper compares those trends of research with respect to the constructs of fluid intelligence, working memory, processing speed, inhibition, and executive schemes. Two studies are very briefly presented to support the suggestion that tasks issued from these three traditions are very similar, if not identical, and that theoretical issues are also similar. We conclude in arguing that a unified vision is possible, provided one is (a) interested in the underlying processes and not only in the experimental variations of conditions; (b) willing to adopt a multidimensional view according to which few general mechanisms are at work, such as working memory or processing capacity, inhibition, and executive schemes; and (c) granting a fundamental role to individual differences. Full article
Figures

Figure 1

Open AccessReview
Specific Abilities in the Workplace: More Important Than g?
J. Intell. 2017, 5(2), 13; doi:10.3390/jintelligence5020013 -
Abstract
A frequently reported finding is that general mental ability (GMA) is the best single psychological predictor of job performance. Furthermore, specific abilities often add little incremental validity beyond GMA, suggesting that they are not useful for predicting job performance criteria once general intelligence
[...] Read more.
A frequently reported finding is that general mental ability (GMA) is the best single psychological predictor of job performance. Furthermore, specific abilities often add little incremental validity beyond GMA, suggesting that they are not useful for predicting job performance criteria once general intelligence is accounted for. We review these findings and their historical background, along with different approaches to studying the relative influence of g and narrower abilities. Then, we discuss several recent studies that used relative importance analysis to study this relative influence and that found that specific abilities are equally good, and sometimes better, predictors of work performance than GMA. We conclude by discussing the implications of these findings and sketching future areas for research. Full article
Figures

Figure 1

Open AccessArticle
Paper-Based Assessment of the Effects of Aging on Response Time: A Diffusion Model Analysis
J. Intell. 2017, 5(2), 12; doi:10.3390/jintelligence5020012 -
Abstract
The effects of aging on response time were examined in a paper-based lexical-decision experiment with younger (age 18–36) and older (age 64–75) adults, applying Ratcliff’s diffusion model. Using digital pens allowed the paper-based assessment of response times for single items. Age differences previously
[...] Read more.
The effects of aging on response time were examined in a paper-based lexical-decision experiment with younger (age 18–36) and older (age 64–75) adults, applying Ratcliff’s diffusion model. Using digital pens allowed the paper-based assessment of response times for single items. Age differences previously reported by Ratcliff and colleagues in computer-based experiments were partly replicated: older adults responded more conservatively than younger adults and showed a slowing of their nondecision components of RT by 53 ms. The rates of evidence accumulation (drift rate) showed no age-related differences. Participants with a higher score in a vocabulary test also had higher drift rates. The experiment demonstrates the possibility to use formal processing models with paper-based tests. Full article
Figures

Figure 1

Open AccessArticle
Socio-Demographic Indicators, Intelligence, and Locus of Control as Predictors of Adult Financial Well-Being
J. Intell. 2017, 5(2), 11; doi:10.3390/jintelligence5020011 -
Abstract
The current study investigated a longitudinal data set of 4790 adults examining a set of socio-demographic and psychological factors that influence adult financial well-being. Parental social status (at birth), childhood intelligence and self-esteem (at age 10), locus of control (at age 16), psychological
[...] Read more.
The current study investigated a longitudinal data set of 4790 adults examining a set of socio-demographic and psychological factors that influence adult financial well-being. Parental social status (at birth), childhood intelligence and self-esteem (at age 10), locus of control (at age 16), psychological distress (age 30), educational qualifications (age 34), current occupation, weekly net income, house ownership status, and number of rooms (all measured at age 38 years) were examined. Structural Equation Modelling showed that childhood intelligence, locus of control, education and occupation were all independent predictors of adult financial well-being for both men and women. Parental social status and psychological distress were also significant predictors of the outcome variable for men, but not for women. Whereas for women, in comparison to men, the effects of current occupation and childhood intelligence on the outcome variable appeared to be stronger. The strongest predictor of adult financial well-being was current occupational prestige, followed by educational achievement. The gender deferential of financial well-being indicators and its implications are discussed. Full article
Figures

Figure 1

Open AccessReview
Complex Problem Solving in Assessments of Collaborative Problem Solving
J. Intell. 2017, 5(2), 10; doi:10.3390/jintelligence5020010 -
Abstract
Collaborative problem solving (ColPS) proficiency was developed as a new assessment for the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) in the 2015 international evaluation of student skills and knowledge. The assessment framework defined by the PISA ColPS 2015 expert group crossed three major
[...] Read more.
Collaborative problem solving (ColPS) proficiency was developed as a new assessment for the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) in the 2015 international evaluation of student skills and knowledge. The assessment framework defined by the PISA ColPS 2015 expert group crossed three major collaboration processes with four problem solving processes that were adopted from the PISA 2012 individual problem solving assessment to form a matrix of 12 specific skills. The three major collaboration processes are (1) establishing and maintaining shared understanding; (2) taking appropriate action; and (3) establishing and maintaining team organization. The four problem solving processes are exploring and understanding the problem, representing and formulating the problem, planning and executing strategies, and monitoring and reflecting on the problem-solving activities. This article discusses how the problem-solving dimension was integrated with the collaboration dimension. We also discuss how computer agents were involved in the PISA ColPS 2015 assessment in order to ensure a satisfactory assessment of collaborative problem solving. Examples of the use of agents to assess ColPS are provided in the context of a released PISA item and a project conducted in Taiwan. Full article
Open AccessArticle
Human Capital and Reemployment Success: The Role of Cognitive Abilities and Personality
J. Intell. 2017, 5(1), 9; doi:10.3390/jintelligence5010009 -
Abstract
Involuntary periods of unemployment represent major negative experiences for many individuals. Therefore, it is important to identify factors determining the speed job seekers are able to find new employment. The present study focused on cognitive and non-cognitive abilities of job seekers that determine
[...] Read more.
Involuntary periods of unemployment represent major negative experiences for many individuals. Therefore, it is important to identify factors determining the speed job seekers are able to find new employment. The present study focused on cognitive and non-cognitive abilities of job seekers that determine their reemployment success. A sample of German adults (N = 1366) reported on their employment histories over the course of six years and provided measures on their fluid and crystallized intelligence, mathematical and reading competence, and the Big Five of personality. Proportional hazard regression analyses modeled the conditional probability of finding a new job at a given time dependent on the cognitive and personality scores. The results showed that fluid and crystallized intelligence as well as reading competence increased the probability of reemployment. Moreover, emotionally stable job seekers had higher odds of finding new employment. Other personality traits of the Big Five were less relevant for reemployment success. Finally, crystallized intelligence and emotional stability exhibited unique predictive power after controlling for the other traits and showed incremental effects with regard to age, education, and job type. These findings highlight that stable individual differences have a systematic, albeit rather small, effect on unemployment durations. Full article
Figures

Figure 1

Open AccessArticle
What Can We Learn from “Not Much More than g”?
J. Intell. 2017, 5(1), 8; doi:10.3390/jintelligence5010008 -
Abstract
A series of papers showing that measures of general cognitive ability predicted performance on the job and in training and that measures of specific cognitive abilities rarely made an incremental contribution to prediction led to a premature decline in research on the roles
[...] Read more.
A series of papers showing that measures of general cognitive ability predicted performance on the job and in training and that measures of specific cognitive abilities rarely made an incremental contribution to prediction led to a premature decline in research on the roles of specific abilities in the workplace. Lessons learned from this research include the importance of choosing the right general cognitive measures and variables, the relative roles of prediction vs. understanding and the need for a wide range of criteria when evaluating the contribution of specific skills such as complex problem solving. In particular, research published since the “not much more than g” era suggests that distinguishing between fluid and crystallized intelligence is important for understanding the development and the contribution of complex problem solving. Full article
Open AccessEditorial
Acknowledgement to Reviewers of Journal of Intelligence in 2016
J. Intell. 2017, 5(1), 7; doi:10.3390/jintelligence5010007 -
Abstract The editors of Journal of Intelligence would like to express their sincere gratitude to the following reviewers for assessing manuscripts in 2016.[...] Full article
Open AccessCommentary
Sometimes Less Is Not Enough: A Commentary on Greiff et al. (2015)
J. Intell. 2017, 5(1), 4; doi:10.3390/jintelligence5010004 -
Abstract
In this commentary, I discuss some critical issues in the study by Greiff, S.; Stadler, M.; Sonnleitner, P.; Wolff, C.; Martin, R., “Sometimes less is more: Comparing the validity of complex problem solving measures”, Intelligence2015, 50, 100–113. I conclude that—counter
[...] Read more.
In this commentary, I discuss some critical issues in the study by Greiff, S.; Stadler, M.; Sonnleitner, P.; Wolff, C.; Martin, R., “Sometimes less is more: Comparing the validity of complex problem solving measures”, Intelligence2015, 50, 100–113. I conclude that—counter to the claims made in the original study—the specific study design was not suitable for deriving conclusions about the validity of different complex problem-solving (CPS) measurement approaches. Furthermore, a more elaborate consideration of previous CPS research was found to challenge Greiff et al.’s conclusions even further. Therefore, I argue that researchers should be aware of the differences between several kinds of CPS assessment tools and conceptualizations when the validity of CPS assessment tools is examined in future research. Full article
Open AccessReply
Sometimes More is Too Much: A Rejoinder to the Commentaries on Greiff et al. (2015)
J. Intell. 2017, 5(1), 6; doi:10.3390/jintelligence5010006 -
Abstract
In this rejoinder, we respond to two commentaries on the study by Greiff, S.; Stadler, M.; Sonnleitner, P.; Wolff, C.; Martin, R. Sometimes less is more: Comparing the validity of complex problem solving measures. Intelligence2015, 50, 100–113. The study was
[...] Read more.
In this rejoinder, we respond to two commentaries on the study by Greiff, S.; Stadler, M.; Sonnleitner, P.; Wolff, C.; Martin, R. Sometimes less is more: Comparing the validity of complex problem solving measures. Intelligence2015, 50, 100–113. The study was the first to address the important comparison between a classical measure of complex problem solving (CPS) and the more recent multiple complex systems (MCS) approach regarding their validity. In the study, we investigated the relations between one classical microworld as the initially developed method (here, the Tailorshop) with three more recently developed multiple complex systems (MCS; here, MicroDYN, Genetics Lab, and MicroFIN) tests. We found that the MCS tests showed higher levels of convergent validity with each other than with the Tailorshop even after reasoning was controlled for, thus empirically distinguishing between the two approaches. The commentary by Kretzschmar and the commentary by Funke, Fischer, and Holt expressed several concerns with how our study was conducted, our data was analyzed, and our results were interpreted. Whereas we acknowledge and agree with some of the more general statements made in these commentaries, we respectfully disagree with others, or we consider them to be at least partially in contrast with the existing literature and the currently available empirical evidence. Full article
Open AccessCommentary
When Less Is Less: Solving Multiple Simple Problems Is Not Complex Problem Solving—A comment on Greiff et al. (2015)
J. Intell. 2017, 5(1), 5; doi:10.3390/jintelligence5010005 -
Abstract
In this commentary, we critically review the study of Greiff, Stadler, Sonnleitner, Wolff, and Martin, “Sometimes less is more: Comparing the validity of complex problem solving measures” (Intelligence,2015, 50, 100–113). The main conclusion of Greiff et al. that the
[...] Read more.
In this commentary, we critically review the study of Greiff, Stadler, Sonnleitner, Wolff, and Martin, “Sometimes less is more: Comparing the validity of complex problem solving measures” (Intelligence,2015, 50, 100–113). The main conclusion of Greiff et al. that the “multiple complex systems” (MCS) approach to measuring complex problem-solving ability possesses superior validity compared to classical microworld scenarios (“less is more”) seems to be an overgeneralization based on inappropriate analysis and selective interpretation of results. In its original form, MCS is a useful tool for investigating specific aspects of problem solving within dynamic systems. However, its value as an instrument for the assessment of complex problem solving ability remains limited. Full article
Figures

Figure 1

Open AccessBrief Report
Confirmatory Factor Analysis of WAIS-IV in a Clinical Sample: Examining a Bi-Factor Model
J. Intell. 2017, 5(1), 2; doi:10.3390/jintelligence5010002 -
Abstract
There have been a number of studies that have examined the factor structure of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale IV (WAIS-IV) using the standardization sample. In this study, we investigate its factor structure on a clinical neuropsychology sample of mixed aetiology. Correlated factor,
[...] Read more.
There have been a number of studies that have examined the factor structure of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale IV (WAIS-IV) using the standardization sample. In this study, we investigate its factor structure on a clinical neuropsychology sample of mixed aetiology. Correlated factor, higher-order and bi-factor models are all tested. Overall, the results suggest that the WAIS-IV will be suitable for use with this population. Full article
Open AccessArticle
Childhood Cognitive Ability Predicts Adult Financial Well-Being
J. Intell. 2017, 5(1), 3; doi:10.3390/jintelligence5010003 -
Abstract
This study set out to investigate to what extent childhood cognitive ability, along with personality traits, education and occupational status, as well as marital status influence adult financial success. Data were drawn from a large, prospective birth cohort in the UK, the National
[...] Read more.
This study set out to investigate to what extent childhood cognitive ability, along with personality traits, education and occupational status, as well as marital status influence adult financial success. Data were drawn from a large, prospective birth cohort in the UK, the National Child Development Study (NCDS). The analytic sample was comprised of 4537 cohort members with data on parental social class (at birth), cognitive ability (at age 11), educational qualifications (at age 33), personality traits (at age 50), current marital status and occupational prestige, and salary/wage earning level (all measured at age 54). Correlational results showed that parental social class, childhood cognitive ability, traits extraversion, emotional stability, conscientiousness, and openness, being married positively, being divorced or separated negatively, education and occupation as well as gender were all significantly associated with adult earning ability (p < 0.05 to p < 0.001). Effect sizes for the relationship between intelligence and income was moderate. Results of a multiple regression analysis showed that childhood cognitive ability, traits conscientiousness and openness, educational qualifications and occupational prestige were significant and independent predictors of adult earning ability accounting for 30% of the total variance. There was also a gender effect on the outcome variable. Numerous limitations are noted. Full article
Open AccessReview
Racial IQ Differences among Transracial Adoptees: Fact or Artifact?
J. Intell. 2017, 5(1), 1; doi:10.3390/jintelligence5010001 -
Abstract
Some academic publications infer from studies of transracial adoptees’ IQs that East Asian adoptees raised in the West by Whites have higher IQs than Western Whites, and that White adoptees raised by Whites have higher IQs than Black adoptees raised by Whites. Those
[...] Read more.
Some academic publications infer from studies of transracial adoptees’ IQs that East Asian adoptees raised in the West by Whites have higher IQs than Western Whites, and that White adoptees raised by Whites have higher IQs than Black adoptees raised by Whites. Those publications suggest that this is because genetic differences give East Asians a higher mean IQ than Whites, and Whites a higher mean IQ than Blacks. This paper proposes a parsimonious alternative explanation: the apparent IQ advantage of East Asian adoptees is an artifact caused by ignoring the Flynn effect and adoption’s beneficial effect on IQ, and most of the IQ disadvantage of Black adoptees disappears when one allows for attrition in the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study, and acknowledges the results of other studies. Diagnosing these artifacts suggests a nil hypothesis: East Asian, White, and Black adoptees raised in the same environment would have similar IQs, hinting at a minimal role for genes in racial IQ differences. Full article
Open AccessReview
Use of Response Time for Measuring Cognitive Ability
J. Intell. 2016, 4(4), 14; doi:10.3390/jintelligence4040014 -
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to review some of the key literature on response time as it has played a role in cognitive ability measurement, providing a historical perspective as well as covering current research. We discuss the speed-level distinction, dimensions of
[...] Read more.
The purpose of this paper is to review some of the key literature on response time as it has played a role in cognitive ability measurement, providing a historical perspective as well as covering current research. We discuss the speed-level distinction, dimensions of speed and level in cognitive abilities frameworks, speed–accuracy tradeoff, approaches to addressing speed–accuracy tradeoff, analysis methods, particularly item response theory-based, response time models from cognitive psychology (ex-Gaussian function, and the diffusion model), and other uses of response time in testing besides ability measurement. We discuss several new methods that can be used to provide greater insight into the speed and level aspects of cognitive ability and speed–accuracy tradeoff decisions. These include item-level time limits, the use of feedback (e.g., CUSUMs), explicit scoring rules that combine speed and accuracy information (e.g., count down timing), and cognitive psychology models. We also review some of the key psychometric advances in modeling speed and level, which combine speed and ability measurement, address speed–accuracy tradeoff, allow for distinctions between response times on items responded to correctly and incorrectly, and integrate psychometrics with information-processing modeling. We suggest that the application of these models and tools is likely to advance both the science and measurement of human abilities for theory and applications. Full article
Figures

Figure 1

Open AccessArticle
Modeling Mental Speed: Decomposing Response Time Distributions in Elementary Cognitive Tasks and Correlations with Working Memory Capacity and Fluid Intelligence
J. Intell. 2016, 4(4), 13; doi:10.3390/jintelligence4040013 -
Abstract
Previous research has shown an inverse relation between response times in elementary cognitive tasks and intelligence, but findings are inconsistent as to which is the most informative score. We conducted a study (N = 200) using a battery of elementary cognitive tasks,
[...] Read more.
Previous research has shown an inverse relation between response times in elementary cognitive tasks and intelligence, but findings are inconsistent as to which is the most informative score. We conducted a study (N = 200) using a battery of elementary cognitive tasks, working memory capacity (WMC) paradigms, and a test of fluid intelligence (gf). Frequently used candidate scores and model parameters derived from the response time (RT) distribution were tested. Results confirmed a clear correlation of mean RT with WMC and to a lesser degree with gf. Highly comparable correlations were obtained for alternative location measures with or without extreme value treatment. Moderate correlations were found as well for scores of RT variability, but they were not as strong as for mean RT. Additionally, there was a trend towards higher correlations for slow RT bands, as compared to faster RT bands. Clearer evidence was obtained in an ex-Gaussian decomposition of the response times: the exponential component was selectively related to WMC and gf in easy tasks, while mean response time was additionally predictive in the most complex tasks. The diffusion model parsimoniously accounted for these effects in terms of individual differences in drift rate. Finally, correlations of model parameters as trait-like dispositions were investigated across different tasks, by correlating parameters of the diffusion and the ex-Gaussian model with conventional RT and accuracy scores. Full article
Figures

Figure 1

Open AccessArticle
Cognitive Aging in the Seattle Longitudinal Study: Within-Person Associations of Primary Mental Abilities with Psychomotor Speed and Cognitive Flexibility
J. Intell. 2016, 4(3), 12; doi:10.3390/jintelligence4030012 -
Abstract
It has long been proposed that cognitive aging in fluid abilities is driven by age-related declines of processing speed. Although study of between-person associations generally supports this view, accumulating longitudinal between-person and within-person evidence indicates less strong associations between speed and fluid cognitive
[...] Read more.
It has long been proposed that cognitive aging in fluid abilities is driven by age-related declines of processing speed. Although study of between-person associations generally supports this view, accumulating longitudinal between-person and within-person evidence indicates less strong associations between speed and fluid cognitive performance. Initial evidence also suggests that cognitive flexibility may explain within-person variability in cognitive performance. In the present study, we used up to nine waves of data over 56 years from a subsample of 582 participants of the Seattle Longitudinal Study to examine (a) within-person associations of psychomotor speed and cognitive flexibility with cognitive aging in primary mental abilities (including inductive reasoning, number ability, verbal meaning, spatial orientation, and word fluency); and (b) how these within-person associations change with age. In line with the processing speed theory, results revealed that within persons, primary mental abilities (including fluid, crystallized, and visualization measures) were indeed associated with psychomotor speed. We also observed age-related increases in within-person couplings between primary mental abilities and psychomotor speed. While the processing speed theory focuses primarily on associations with fluid abilities, age-related increases in coupling were found for a variety of ability domains. Within-person associations between primary mental abilities and cognitive flexibility were weaker and relatively stable with age. We discuss the role of speed and flexibility for cognitive aging. Full article
Figures

Figure 1

Open AccessArticle
Sometimes More Is Better, and Sometimes Less Is Better: Task Complexity Moderates the Response Time Accuracy Correlation
J. Intell. 2016, 4(3), 11; doi:10.3390/jintelligence4030011 -
Abstract
This study addresses the relationship between item response time and item accuracy (i.e., the response time accuracy correlation, RTAC) in figural matrices tests. The dual processing account of response time effects predicts negative RTACs in tasks that allow for relatively automatic processing and
[...] Read more.
This study addresses the relationship between item response time and item accuracy (i.e., the response time accuracy correlation, RTAC) in figural matrices tests. The dual processing account of response time effects predicts negative RTACs in tasks that allow for relatively automatic processing and positive RTACs in tasks that require controlled processing. Contrary to these predictions, several studies found negative RTACs for reasoning tests. Nevertheless, it was demonstrated that the RTAC is moderated by task complexity (i.e., the interaction between person ability and item difficulty) and that under conditions of high complexity (i.e., low ability and high difficulty) the RTAC was even slightly positive. The goal of this study was to demonstrate that with respect to task complexity the direction of the RTAC (positive vs. negative) can change substantially even within a single task paradigm (i.e., figural matrices). These predictions were tested using a figural matrices test that employs a constructed response format and has a broad range of item difficulties in a sample with a broad range of ability. Confirming predictions, strongly negative RTACs were observed when task complexity was low (i.e., fast responses tended to be correct). With increasing task complexity, the RTAC flipped to be strongly positive (i.e., slow responses tended to be correct). This flip occurred earlier for people with lower ability, and later for people with higher ability. Cognitive load of the items is suggested as an explanation for this phenomenon. Full article
Figures

Figure 1