A study comparing art abilities and general intelligence of college students.

Ea, Bottorf

doi:10.1037/h0058445

Cited by 6 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Parsons and colleagues stressed that manipulating masterpieces was a standard technique in artistic movements like Pop Art, so they questioned the utility of tests based on comparisons between originals and alterations and emphasized expert judgment's mutable character. They criticized the direct use of expert judgment in Child's (1962), Graves's (1939), Meier's (1940), Welsh's (1959; also Barron & Welsh, 1952;Welsh & Barron, 1949), Thorndike's (1916), Bottorf's (1946), and Williams and Hattwick's (1932) tests, as it is "easier to get agreement among experts on reasons for judgments than on judgments themselves" (Bamossy et al, 1985, p. 67). Consequently, they disregarded the prevailing notion of aesthetic sensitivity while defended the existence of objective value and the utility of assessing aesthetic ability.…”

Section: The Educative Viewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Aesthetic sensitivity: Origin and development of an idea

Clemente¹

2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aesthetic sensitivity is a core idea in empirical aesthetics, referred to the appreciation of sensory objects. Throughout the history of the discipline, it has been conceptualized in many ways. Two antagonistic notions of aesthetic sensitivity encompass most contributions in the literature: On one side, the promoters of a normative notion—comprising determinist and educative views—devised it for educational purposes. On the other, the advocates of sensitivity as responsiveness to sensory stimulation—as sensitivity is commonly understood and defined conceived it as a means to investigate sensory valuation. This chapter critically reviews each notion’s emergence and development through its leading proponents, considering their influences, context, and scientific impact.

show abstract

Section: The Educative Viewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Aesthetic sensitivity: Origin and development of an idea

Clemente¹

2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…General intelligence, in particular, its utility in predicting specialized competence and the challenge of its accurate measurement, has long stimulated enormous interest in psychological research (e.g., Marquart & Bailey, 1955; Bottorf, 1946; Embree, 1946; Kendler, 1946; Thomson, 1946; Willoughby, 1928). With the advent of fMRI imaging, neural substrates of general and fluid intelligence have been mapped in the brain, primarily to frontoparietal and temporal locations (Barbey, Colom, Paul, & Grafman, 2014; Hampshire, Thompson, Duncan, & Owen, 2011; Preusse, van der Meer, Deshpande, Krueger, & Wartenburger, 2011; Colom, Karama, Jung, & Haier, 2010; Woolgar et al, 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Making Cognitive Latent Variables Manifest: Distinct Neural Networks for Fluid Reasoning and Processing Speed

Habeck

Steffener

Barulli

et al. 2015

Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cognitive psychologists posit several specific cognitive abilities that are measured with sets of cognitive tasks. Tasks that purportedly tap a specific underlying cognitive ability are strongly correlated with one another, whereas performances on tasks that tap different cognitive abilities are less strongly correlated. For these reasons, latent variables are often considered optimal for describing individual differences in cognitive abilities. Although latent variables cannot be directly observed, all cognitive tasks representing a specific latent ability should have a common neural underpinning. Here, we show that cognitive tasks representing one ability (i.e., either perceptual speed or fluid reasoning) had a neural activation pattern distinct from that of tasks in the other ability. One hundred six participants between the ages of 20 and 77 years were imaged in an fMRI scanner while performing six cognitive tasks, three representing each cognitive ability. Consistent with prior research, behavioral performance on these six tasks clustered into the two abilities based on their patterns of individual differences and tasks postulated to represent one ability showed higher similarity across individuals than tasks postulated to represent a different ability. This finding was extended in the current report to the spatial resemblance of the task-related activation patterns: The topographic similarity of the mean activation maps for tasks postulated to reflect the same reference ability was higher than for tasks postulated to reflect a different reference ability. Furthermore, for any task pairing, behavioral and topographic similarities of underlying activation patterns are strongly linked. These findings suggest that differences in the strengths of correlations between various cognitive tasks may be because of the degree of overlap in the neural structures that are active when the tasks are being performed. Thus, the latent variable postulated to account for correlations at a behavioral level may reflect topographic similarities in the neural activation across different brain regions.

show abstract