The neural efficiency hypothesis describes the phenomenon that brighter individuals show lower brain activation than less bright individuals when working on the same cognitive tasks. The present study investigated whether the brain activation–intelligence relationship still applies when more versus less intelligent individuals perform tasks with a comparable person-specific task difficulty. In an fMRI-study, 58 persons with lower (n = 28) or respectively higher (n = 30) intelligence worked on simple and difficult inductive reasoning tasks having the same person-specific task difficulty. Consequently, less bright individuals received sample-based easy and medium tasks, whereas bright subjects received sample-based medium and difficult tasks. This design also allowed a comparison of lower versus higher intelligent individuals when working on the same tasks (i.e. sample-based medium task difficulty). In line with expectations, differences in task performance and in brain activation were only found for the subset of tasks with the same sample-based task difficulty, but not when comparing tasks with the same person-specific task difficulty. These results suggest that neural efficiency reflects an (ability-dependent) adaption of brain activation to the respective task demands.

There has been considerable debate and interest regarding the factor structure of executive functioning (EF). Therefore, the aim of the current study was to delve into this issue differently, by investigating EF and other cognitive constructs, such as working memory capacity (WMC), relational integration, and divided attention, which may contribute to EF. Here, we examined whether it is possible to provide evidence for a definite model of EF containing the components of updating, shifting, and inhibition. For this purpose, 202 young adults completed a battery of EF, three WMC tests, three relational integration tests, and two divided attention tests. A confirmatory factor analysis on all the cognitive abilities produced a five-factor structure, which included one factor predominately containing shifting tasks, the next factor containing two updating tasks, the third one predominately representing WMC, the fourth factor consisting of relational integration and antisaccade tasks, and finally, the last factor consisting of the divided attention and stop signal tasks. Lastly, a subsequent hierarchical model supported a higher-order factor, thereby representing general cognitive ability.

This systematic literature review aimed to examine the effects of Virtual Reality (VR), Augmented Reality (AR), and Mixed Reality (MR) head-mounted displays (HMDs) on patient understanding, satisfaction, and anxiety during preoperative informed consent. Following PRISMA-P guidelines (Prospero ID: CRD42023487281), we searched four major databases from their inception to March 24, 2023. Studies were eligible if they utilized VR, AR, or MR HMDs to visualize patient-specific data during informed consent across any medical specialty. Two reviewers independently conducted all steps of the systematic review process, and the risk of bias was assessed using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS). Sixteen studies involving a total of 1067 patients were identified and included. These comprised 10 Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) and 6 Non-Randomized Controlled Trials (non-RCTs), including one comparative study and five non-comparative studies. The literature reviewed was heterogeneous, encompassing patients with diverse conditions across various medical specialties, including cardiology, neurosurgery, transplantation surgery, vascular surgery, plastic surgery, and urology. The results demonstrated that VR, AR, and MR HMDs positively impact patient understanding, satisfaction, and anxiety reduction. Notably, the findings were more consistent for VR HMDs compared to the limited and variable literature on AR and MR HMDs. VR, AR, and MR HMDs generally show positive effects on patient understanding, satisfaction, and anxiety in preoperative informed consent. While VR HMDs consistently yield positive outcomes, further research is needed to elucidate the effectiveness and benefits of AR and MR HMDs in preoperative consultations.

The Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS-30) is the standard instrument for assessing symptoms of schizophrenia and related psychotic disorders. However, its long administration time and structural issues have prompted the development of shorter versions. The PANSS-6, derived through Item Response Theory and Rasch analysis of the PANSS-8, emerged as a potential alternative. Comprising three positive and three negative symptom items, the PANSS-6 offers a more feasible assessment tool. However, its measurement properties have never been systematically reviewed. We applied the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analytical procedures to assess the psychometric properties of the PANSS-6. COSMIN comprises several steps: literature search, risk-of-bias assessments, assessing the updated criteria for good measurement properties, grading the quality of the evidence and feasibility aspects. We included 13 publications. The PANSS-6 showed sufficient content validity, structural validity, measurement invariance, reliability, criterion validity, construct validity and responsiveness according to COSMIN. On some of them only a small body of evidence is currently available. For internal consistency, cross-cultural validity and measurement error there was not enough evidence for a definite rating. Its short administration time of only 15-20 mins renders feasibility good. The PANSS-6 does not cover all schizophrenia symptoms but focuses on the core symptoms in favor of a feasible administration time. The evidence available on its measurement properties yields sufficient results for its purpose - the assessment of symptom severity and its change. According to COSMIN it can potentially be recommended for use.