Template Journals Hipatia Press Instructions for authors, subscriptions and further details: http://ijep.hipatiapress.com/ The Cognitive Profile of Intellectual Giftedness David Asensio1, Jon Andoni Duñabeitia1 & Ana Fernández-Mera1 1) International Chair in Cognitive Health, Universidad Nebrija, Spain Date of publication: July 21th, 2023 Edition period: July 2023 - October 2023 To cite this article: Asensio, D., Duñabeitia, J.A., & Fernández-Mera, A. (2023). The Cognitive Profile of Intellectual Giftedness. International Journal of Educational Psychology, Published July 21th 2023. http://dx.doi.org/10.17583/ijep.11828 To link this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.17583/ijep.11828 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE The terms and conditions of use are related to the Open Journal System and to Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY) http://ijep.hipatiapress.com/ http://dx.doi.org/10.17583/ijep.11828 http://dx.doi.org/10.17583/ijep.11828 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ 2023 Hipatia Press ISSN: 2014-3575 DOI: 10.17583/ijep.11828 IJEP – International Journal of Educational Psychology – Online First – First Published July 21th2023 The Cognitive Profile of Intellectual Giftedness David Asensio Jon Andoni Duñabeitia Universidad Nebrija Universidad Nebrija Ana Fernández-Mera Universidad Nebrija Abstract Previous literature has suggested the existence of a close relationship between individuals’ intellectual abilities and their cognitive profile, understood as their performance in tasks tapping into the different cognitive domains. This relationship has typically been discussed in populations characterized as having high intellectual abilities, as is the case of gifted children and adolescents. In this study, the cognitive profile in domains of memory, attention, coordination, perception, and reasoning of a group of gifted children and adolescents was contrasted with a control group similar in age distribution, gender and socioeconomic level but with normotypical development. The results indicated that participants in the gifted group scored higher than those in the control group in all cognitive domains. The differences in cognitive abilities were not consistent across all areas, meaning that some cognitive abilities did not show significant differences, while others did. These results help to identify a more precise cognitive profile of gifted individuals, yielding a better understanding of the relationship between intelligence and cognitive abilities. The study provides evidence that allows delving into the most differential and characteristic aspects of giftedness. Keywords: giftedness, talented children, cognitive skills, executive functions, IQ 2023 HipatiaPress ISSN: 2014-3591 DOI: 10.17583/ijep.11828 IJEP – International Journal of Educational Psychology – Online First – First Published July 21th 2023 El Perfil Cognitivo de las Altas Capacidades David Asensio Jon Andoni Duñabeitia Universidad Nebrija Universidad Nebrija Ana Fernández-Mera Universidad Nebrija Resumen La literatura previa ha sugerido la existencia de una estrecha relación entre las capacidades intelectuales de los individuos y su perfil cognitivo, entendido como su rendimiento en tareas que abordan los diferentes dominios cognitivos. Esta relación se ha discutido típicamente en poblaciones caracterizadas por tener altas capacidades intelectuales, como es el caso de los niños y adolescentes superdotados. En este estudio se contrastó el perfil cognitivo en dominios de memoria, atención, coordinación, percepción y razonamiento de un grupo de niños y adolescentes superdotados con un grupo de control similar en distribución de edad, sexo y nivel socioeconómico, pero con desarrollo normotípico. Los resultados indican que los participantes del grupo de superdotados tuvieron una puntuación mayor que el grupo control en todas las áreas cognitivas. Las diferencias en las habilidades cognitivas no fueron consistentes entre todas las áreas, lo que significa que algunas habilidades cognitivas no mostraron diferencias significativas, mientras que otras sí lo hicieron. Estos resultados ayudan a identificar un perfil cognitivo más preciso de las personas con altas capacidades, a comprender mejor la relación entre inteligencia y las capacidades cognitivas, y aportan evidencias que permiten profundizar en los aspectos más diferenciales y característicos de la superdotación. Palabras clave: altas capacidades, niños superdotados, capacidades cognitivas, funciones ejecutivas, CI Asensio, Duñabeitia & Fernandez-Mera– The Cognitive Profile of Intellectual Giftedness 3 ntelligence, understood as a person's ability to learn from experience and to adapt, shape, and select environments (Sternberg, 2012), is a broad concept that has been studied for more than a century (Binet & Simon, 1904; Spearman 1904). A large part of the literature on intelligence has focused on identifying what makes a person intelligent, with children with high intellectual abilities being the target subjects of many studies (namely, gifted, or talented children with a high IQ). While it is true that the broad concept of intelligence is still used to refer to gifted children, research has tried for years to further refine the concepts underlying intelligence, resulting in the g-factor, often more or less successfully parameterized as intelligence quotient (IQ) in a series of standardized tests. However, these concepts remain unspecific and insufficient to describe the complexity of the concept of intelligence. In this regard, a wide variety of relevant factors should be considered, such as motivation and creativity (Renzulli, 1978), or personality (Fries et al., 2022). One of the most interesting trends is to break down the intelligence concept into cognitive abilities (Chekaf et al., 2018; Rowe et al., 2014; Wai et al., 2022), which makes it possible to study how these are profiled in gifted children. While some authors open the debate as to whether these profiles are reliable and how they should be interpreted (Canivez & Watkins, 1998), these models are broadly accepted (Fiorello et al., 2002). In this way, intelligence would be the tip of an iceberg composed of a large pool of cognitive abilities (Gow, 2016; Schneider & Newman, 2015). The age variation of intelligence (Breit et al., 2020; Sternberg, 2012) also serves as an additional clue of the potentially intimate relationship with cognitive abilities, as both change in a similar way (Borella et al., 2019; Gow 2016). With these premises and based on the systematic review conducted by Bucaille et al. (2021), a natural research question would be how different gifted children’s cognitive abilities would be as compared to their peers with normotypical intelligence. Domain-general cognitive abilities could be understood as a set of brain processes that allow a person to perform from the most basic activities, such as perceiving a stimulus in the environment, to more complex activities, such as organizing a week of hard work. As with intelligence, cognitive abilities have also been extensively studied for decades (Atkinson & Shiffrin, 1968; Baddeley & Hitch, 1974; Broadbent, 1958; Diamond, 2013; Lezak, 1982; I IJEP – International Journal of Educational Psychology, 00(0) 4 Norman & Shallice, 1986; Sohlberg & Mateer, 1989). Individual cognitive abilities or processes tend to be grouped into different cognitive areas or domains, such as attention (Sohlberg & Mateer, 1989), memory (Baddeley & Hitch, 1974), or executive functions (hereafter EFs; Lezak, 1982), among others. This latter set of cognitive abilities (i.e., EFs) represents one of the cognitive areas that is to be most tightly associated with intelligence (Chen et al., 2019; Deary et al., 2009; Debraise et al., 2020; Gray et al., 2022; Takeuchi et al., 2021). This close relationship between EFs and intelligence is endorsed by neuroimaging data showing that these cognitive skills are mainly managed by the prefrontal cortex of the human brain (Friedman & Robbins, 2021; Jones & Graff-Radford, 2021) and that intelligence is also related to this same area (Sternberg, 2012). One could think of two types of approaches when measuring intelligence depending on whether the tests focus on the g-factor or on an aggregate of cognitive abilities: mono-ability IQ tests (Raven, 1938), and composite abilities IQ tests (Wechsler, 2008). This lack of agreement in the approach to the assessment of intelligence puts the developers in a bind. Considering that the selected theory or definition will direct how the type of test and its outcome will be, the developers of such tests have made a great effort to choose the most robust and functional ones. Although the IQ score has traditionally been a basic concept for determining giftedness (Pfeiffer, 2015), in recent years there has been increasinginterest at the international level in exploring beyond the concept of IQ. As Schneider and Flanagan (2015) point out, the developers of intelligence tests have based on a series of theories of intelligence, following a pattern of overlapping waves, starting in 1904 and lasting until current days. The first wave of tests measured general intelligence; the second wave focused on specific aspects of test performance (e.g., comparing the outcomes, such as failures and successes, on a specific type of item); the third wave introduced more rigorous psychometric methods for interpreting individual profiles; and the fourth wave of tests had well- developed operational theories, improving the interpretation of the results. As noted by Zajda (2019) in his review about current models and theories of intelligence, Gardner (2012) grouped theories of intelligence into four types: (1) psychometric theories, based on individual differences in academic success; (2) cognitive theories, based on various processes involved in performance and specific mental operations; (3) cognitive-contextual Asensio, Duñabeitia & Fernandez-Mera– The Cognitive Profile of Intellectual Giftedness 5 theories, which framed mental processes in a socio-cultural context; and (4) biological theories, which try to cover the relationship between intelligence, the brain, and its functions. In this line, over and above the selected focus and approach of each test (namely, the wave a test belongs to), the developers of intelligence tests also fall into one of these groups at the theoretical level. According to Britannica (2021), the most widely used intelligence tests today are the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale (Binet & Simon, 1904) and the Wechsler scales (Wechsler, 2008). Both tests can likely be categorized within psychometric and cognitive theories, respectively, at least in their early versions. In the case of the most current computerized intelligence tests, such as the Adaptive Test of General Intelligence (Abad et al., 2020), they would still be framed within the group of psychometric theories, since cognitive- contextual theories and biological theories are more difficult to operationally transfer to a test. While these tests have traditionally been used to measure intelligence level and to validate categorization as high-IQ or talented (Cao et al., 2017; Gignac, 2015) they do not provide data on the specific cognitive profile associated with a given IQ, although some approaches have been made (Schneider, 2013). Stemming from the seemingly tight link between IQ and cognitive skills, the current study was set to obtain a more comprehensive and detailed view of the cognitive state of gifted children compared to their normative peers. By analyzing the differences between high-IQ and average-IQ children in different cognitive domains we will be in a better position to draw a much more accurate and precise profile for gifted and average children, exploring differences between these populations beyond an isolated data point of IQ (Guignard et al., 2016). In the case of gifted children who already have an exceptional IQ, one could tentatively predict differences with respect to the general population also in their cognitive abilities, or at least in some of them (Steiner & Carr, 2003). While some data has been provided specifically concerning an enhanced performance of talented children in tasks tapping into working memory (Aubry & Bourdin, 2021; Aubry et al., 2021), it remains to be seen if and how the differences between gifted and average-IQ children extend to various cognitive domains and skills. IJEP – International Journal of Educational Psychology, 00(0) 6 The current study explored whether gifted children have a better cognitive profile than the general reference population and their peers with normative intelligence, and if so, in which specific cognitive domains and subdomains would be these differences more salient. Thus, the aim of the study is to quantitatively identify the cognitive profile of giftedness and to delimit the relationship between intelligence and cognitive abilities. Methodology Instruments A battery of computerized cognitive test was used to provide a quantitative description of cognitive domains and skills of the participants. The instrument used in this regard was the Cognitive Assessment Battery (CAB)™ (CogniFit Inc., San Francisco, US), validated against classical well-known tests (Haimov et al., 2008). This instrument is an online assessment battery widely used in children (Conesa & Duñabeitia, 2021; Reina-Reina et al., 2023), adults (Chandler et al., 2013), the elderly (Thompson et al., 2011), both healthy (Tapia et al., 2022) or with a pathological condition (Duñabeitia et al., 2023; Haimov et al., 2008). It is composed of a set of 17 neuropsychological tasks based on classical neuropsychological tests —such as the digit span task, the Stroop test, etc.— that can be performed either from a computer, tablet, or smartphone. The version of the test that was used provides an accurate and immediate measurement of 21 cognitive abilities, grouped into 5 cognitive domains. The Attention domain groups the cognitive abilities Focused Attention, Divided Attention, Inhibition, and Updating. The Perception domain includes the cognitive abilities of Visual Perception, Spatial Perception, Auditory Perception, Visual Scanning, and Recognition. The Memory domain contains the cognitive abilities of Short-Term Memory, Visual Short-Term Memory, Auditory Short-Term Memory, Contextual Memory, Visual Memory, Naming, and Working Memory. The Reasoning domain consists of the cognitive abilities of Shifting, Planning, and Processing Speed. The Coordination domain includes the cognitive abilities Eye-Hand Coordination and Response Time. Asensio, Duñabeitia & Fernandez-Mera– The Cognitive Profile of Intellectual Giftedness 7 Data collection The participants in this study were 176 Spanish children aged 8 to 17 years (i.e., 113 participants in the high.ability group, and 63 participants in the group of children with normotypical development). The participants in the sample of children with high abilities were recruited from Spanish associations and institutions for people with high abilities. All of them had the corresponding psycho-pedagogical report for the official diagnosis of high ability that accredits them within this population group. All the psycho-pedagogical assessments were carried out and signed by qualified professionals who had followed the official protocols of each Autonomous Community and thus were registered in the corresponding registry of each Community. In Spain, the identification protocols follow the guidelines of the state education regulations in force at any given time. They also use technically adequate detection instruments. The tests administered to participants in this sample, include the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-V (WISC-V; Wechsler, 2014), the Stanford-Binet-5 (SB-5; Roid et al., 2004), the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children-II (KABC-2; Kaufman et al., 2005), and the Woodcock-Johnson Test of Cognitive Abilities-IV (WJ-IV; Mather & Jaffe, 2016). All these tests can be identified as composite abilities IQ tests, which goes beyond simply measuring IQ. The participants of the sample of students with normotypical development came from schools in different Spanish provinces. A mandatory criterion for inclusion in the normotypical development group was a sufficiently good school performance as attested by their teachers. As a double check for inclusion of participants in each group of the study, an initial screening was performed to ensure that they rigorously met the appropriate eligibility criteria (Del Rosal et al., 2011; Janos & Robinson, 1985; McCallister et al., 1996). For this purpose, a commercially available test was used (Matrices-TAI test, Adaptive Test of General Intelligence; Abad et al., 2020). For a child to be considered a participant in the high ability group, over and above having the pre-existing psycho-pedagogical report, their results in this test had to yield a General Index (GI) corresponding to a high or very high percentile according to the interpretation norms. This double- check procedure ensured that all participants in the gifted group were in fact IJEP – International Journal of Educational Psychology, 00(0) 8 gifted children. After this initial selection, 113 participants were included in the high-ability group (36 females). Their mean age was 11.22 years (SD=2.14). In addition, all participants recruited from schools with normotypical development also completed the general intelligence test to ensure that, following the same general rules of test interpretation, they did not obtain scores corresponding to high or very high percentiles. This procedure avoided possible cases of children with high abilities that had not yet been identified. The final sample included in the normotypical development group consisted of 63 participants (22 females). Their mean age was 11.78 years (SD=2.12). Parents of children in the high ability and normotypical development groups completed a socioeconomic status questionnaire (MacArthur Scale of Subjective Socioeconomic Status; Adler et al., 2000) in which they self- assessed their perceived status, and the results showed no differences between the groups (mean of the high ability group=6.42, SD=1.01; mean of the normotypical development group=6.63, SD=1.13). All families were informed of the nature, purpose, and protocol of the present study and signed informed consent for the participation of their children. The protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Universidad Nebrija. Data analysis The cognitive data acquired were compared between the groups of gifted children and normotypical development children by means of repeated measures ANOVAs following two different approaches. First, the age- and gender-adjusted percentile scores obtained in each of the cognitive domains measured by the Cognitive Assessment Battery (CAB)™ were contrasted between the groups. And second, a series of repeated measures ANOVAs were carried out to explore the potential differences between the groups in the skills that constitute each of the cognitive domains. The whole analysis routine was run using jamovi (The jamovi project, 2022) operating on R (R Core Team 2021) using the packages afex (Singmann, 2018) and emmeans (Lenth, 2020). Asensio, Duñabeitia & Fernandez-Mera– The Cognitive Profile of Intellectual Giftedness 9 Results The results obtained after data analysis of the descriptive data are reported in Table 1. Table 1 Means, standard errors, and 95% confidence intervals of the scores in each cognitive domain and in each skill for each of the groups. High-IQ Group Average-IQ Group 95% Confidence Interval 95% Confidence Interval Cognitive Domain Mean Standard Error Lower Upper Mean Standard Error Lower Upper Attention 65.7 1.57 62.6 68.8 53.3 2.10 49.2 57.5 Divided Attention 73.3 1.97 69.4 77.2 62.8 2.64 57.6 68.0 Focused Attention 52.1 2.44 47.3 56.9 45.8 3.26 39.3 52.2 Inhibition 70.4 2.29 65.9 75.0 58.4 3.07 52.4 64.5 Updating 66.8 2.62 61.7 72.0 46.3 3.50 39.4 53.3 Coordination 61.6 2.07 57.6 65.7 51.2 2.77 45.7 56.7 Eye-hand Coordination 59.2 2.41 54.5 64.0 48.9 3.23 42.5 55.2 Response Time 64.1 2.70 58.7 69.4 53.5 3.61 46.4 60.7 Memory 78.3 1.39 75.6 81.1 67.5 1.86 63.9 71.2 Auditory Short-Term Memory 73.2 2.10 69.1 77.4 61.3 2.81 55.7 66.8 Contextual Memory 85.1 1.45 82.3 88.0 77.2 1.94 73.3 81.0 Naming 79.7 2.19 75.3 84.0 59.7 2.93 53.9 65.4 Short-Term Memory 75.8 2.13 71.6 80.0 66.4 2.85 60.8 72.0 Visual Memory 76.8 2.01 72.8 80.8 68.2 2.70 62.9 73.5 Visual Short-Term Memory 72.5 2.41 67.8 77.3 67.0 3.23 60.7 73.4 Working Memory 85.2 1.61 82.1 88.4 73.0 2.15 68.8 77.3 Perception 68.9 1.20 66.6 71.3 58.9 1.60 55.7 62.0 Auditory Perception 84.8 1.59 81.7 88.0 74.0 2.13 69.8 78.2 Recognition 80.2 1.80 76.7 83.8 67.3 2.42 62.5 72.1 Spatial Perception 52.9 2.68 47.6 58.1 45.3 3.58 38.2 52.4 IJEP – International Journal of Educational Psychology, 00(0) 10 Visual Perception 82.5 1.90 78.7 86.2 65.2 2.54 60.2 70.2 High-IQ Group Average-IQ Group 95% Confidence Interval 95% Confidence Interval Cognitive Domain Mean Standard Error Lower Upper Mean Standard Error Lower Upper Visual Scanning 44.3 2.76 38.9 49.8 42.6 3.69 35.3 49.9 Reasoning 68.6 1.77 65.1 72.1 60.3 2.38 55.6 65.0 Planning 61.5 2.73 56.1 66.9 53.4 3.66 46.2 60.7 Processing Speed 68.3 2.63 63.1 73.5 60.6 3.53 53.6 67.5 Shifting 76.2 2.13 71.9 80.4 66.8 2.86 61.2 72.4 The first analysis approach concerned the exploration of the differences between groups (the Group factor with the levels gifted and normotypical) across the cognitive domains that were measured (the Cognitive Domain factor with the levels attention, memory, coordination, perception, and reasoning). The 2*5 repeated measures ANOVA showed a significant main effect of Group (F(1,174)=23.6, p<.001, η2partial=0.119), that showed an overall higher cognitive performance of the gifted group as compared to the normotypical group. The main effect of Cognitive Domain was also significant (F(4,696)=44.56, p<.001, η2partial=0.204), showing that the percentile scores were different across the domains (see Table 1 and Figure 1). Importantly, the two factors did not interact with each other (F<1 and p>.66), showing that the higher scores obtained by the gifted group were similar across cognitive domains. Asensio, Duñabeitia & Fernandez-Mera– The Cognitive Profile of Intellectual Giftedness 11 Figure 1 Mean score (in percentile) and individual data points in each of the cognitive domains obtained by each group. Data from the gifted group is represented in light grey, and data from the normotypical group is displayed in black. Error bars correspond to 95% confidence intervals. The second analysis followed a fine-grained approach aimed at investigating potential differences between the two groups at test in the magnitude of the contrasting differential effects in each of the skills that constitute each of the cognitive domains. The ANOVA on the data corresponding to the skills that jointly contribute to the Attention cognitive domain (namely, divided attention, focused attention, inhibition and updating) showed a significant interaction with Group (F(3,522)=3.14, p=.025, η2partial=0.018). Post hoc pairwise comparisons using the Tukey correction method for multiple contrasts showed that the gifted and the normotypical groups significantly differed in all skills except for focused attention (t(174)=1.545, pTukey>.77; see Figure 2a). The ANOVA on the Coordination cognitive domain showed that the difference between the groups was similar for the two skills tested (eye-hand coordination and response time), given the lack of an interaction (F<1 and p>.96; see Figure 2b). The ANOVA on the High-IQ Average-IQ IJEP – International Journal of Educational Psychology, 00(0) 12 skills constituting the Memory cognitive domain (auditory short-term memory, contextual memory, naming, short-term memory, visual memory, visual short-term memory and working memory) showed a significant interaction with the factor Group (F(6,1044)=3.18, p=.004, η2partial=0.018). Post hoc pairwise tests demonstrated that the groups did not significantly differ in short-term memory (t(174)=2.64, pTukey=0.32), visual memory (t(174)=2.56, pTukey=0.37), and visual short-term memory (t(174)=1.36, pTukey=0.98). The difference between groups in contextual memory closely approached significance (t(174)=3.29, pTukey=0.07), and the difference in the rest of skills were significant (ts>3.4 and psTukey<.05; see Figure 2c). The results of the analysis on the skills associated with the Perception cognitive domain showed a significant interaction with the Group factor (F(4,696)=2.87, p=.022, η2partial=0.016), demonstrating that while the scores in some of the skills significantly differed between the gifted and normotypical groups (see Figure 2d), the scores in spatial perception (t(174)=1.69, pTukey=0.80) and visual scanning (t(174)=0.38, pTukey=1) were similar across groups. Finally, the analysis of the skills associated with the Reasoning cognitive domain showed similar differences between the groups in the three skills tested (planning, processing speed and shifting), as suggested by the lack of an interaction (F<1 and p>.93; see Figure 2e). Figure 2 Mean score (in percentile) of each of the cognitive skills obtained by each group grouped by domains: a) Attention, b) Coordination, c) Memory, d) Perception, e) Reasoning. Error bars correspond to 95% confidence intervals. Divided Att. = Divided Attention, Focused Att. = Focused attention; A.STM = Auditory Short-Term Memory, C.Mem. = Contextual Memory, STM = Short- Term Memory, V.Mem. = Visual Memory, V.STM = Visual Short-Term Memory, W.Mem. = Working Memory; Auditory P. = Auditory Perception, Spatial P. = Spatial Perception, Visual P. = Visual Perception, Visual Scan = Visual Scanning. Asensio, Duñabeitia & Fernandez-Mera– The Cognitive Profile of Intellectual Giftedness 13 Figure 2 a) b) c) d) e) High-IQ Average-IQ IJEP – International Journal of Educational Psychology, 00(0) 14 Discussion The current study was designed to explore the potential differences between gifted children and a matched group of children with a neurotypical development in terms of their cognitive profile, stemming from the idea that the higher performance of the former group in IQ tests could be also linked to a higher performance in cognitive tests not directly tapping into comprehension-knowledge aptitude (Newton & McGrew, 2010). The results of this study help us conclude that there is an inherent difference not only in the intellectual profile, but also in the cognitive profile between talented or gifted children and their peers. As a baseline measure, we observed that the normotypical group obtained scores close to the median, i.e, 50th percentile, which reinforces the idea that the measurement is correct and follows the expected distribution, and that the selected normotypically developing sample performs as expected for a control group. In contrast, the group of high-IQ children showed a significant overall difference in their cognitive scores as compared to the control group (a difference of around 11 percentile points), suggesting that intellectual giftedness comes hand in hand with cognitive giftedness too. These significant differences were found both in the overall score, in the scores of the five core cognitive domains, and in most of the scores of the individual cognitive abilities. Another question at stake in the current study was whether gifted children excel in all cognitive abilities equally, or if the differences observed with their peers are unevenly distributed across cognitive domains. The general analysis showed that the mean differences obtained across the five tested cognitive domains were markedly homogeneous (i.e., 12 percentile points in Attention, 10 in Coordination, 11 in Memory, 10 in Perception, and 8 in Reasoning), demonstrating that the overall better cognitive performance of the gifted group was not restricted to a given cognitive domain or area. A more fine-grained analysis of each of the cognitive domains and the skills that were tested within them showed that there are cognitive abilities in which the scores of the group of gifted children were significantly higher than those of their normotypical peers, while these differences were much more modest or even negligible in other specific skills. Asensio, Duñabeitia & Fernandez-Mera– The Cognitive Profile of Intellectual Giftedness 15 One interesting finding that deserves attention is the specific group of cognitive abilities in which the difference between talented children and adolescents and their peers is more marked. The importance lies in the fact that one could tentatively suggest that those cognitive skills could presumably be more strongly associated with intelligence. In this line, our results showed that the gifted group obtained a significantly higher score in those cognitive abilities directly or indirectly related to EFs, such as working memory, inhibition, monitoring, or divided attention (see also Aubry, 2021). This finding endorses the idea that EFs have an important implication in what we understand today as intelligence, as already suggested before (Chen et al., 2019; Deary et al., 2009; Debraise et al., 2020; Gray et al., 2022; Takeuchi et al., 2021). Executive functions are highly complex cognitive abilities that allow for the abstract processing of information, and their proposed tight link with IQ stems from the idea that intelligence allows us to abstract information from our experience to adapt to the environment or context (Sternberg, 2012). Nonetheless, other cognitive abilities typically related to EFs such as planning and shifting (Miyake et al., 2000) did not show significant differences between the groups. One explanation for this may be given by Diamond (2011), when she stated that group differences are clearer the more complex the executive function is, and when the cognitive demand in an environment or stimulation program is not increasing, there tends to be no improvement in executive functions. Therefore, it can be inferred that the lack of cognitive challenge in the school stage can end in a lower activation of executive functions. This is an interesting starting point for future studies that could be aimed at deciphering the underlying components of executive factors that predict higher levels of intelligence and to experimental interventional approaches aimed at training different components of EFs and testing changes in the long term at IQ-related levels. Although different ways to improve intelligence have already been proposed (Dilmurod et al., 2020), by focusing on cognitive abilities, this process becomes more self-evident, given the large body of evidence demonstrating the effectiveness of cognitive training methods (Conesa & Duñabeitia, 2021; Diamond & Ling, 2016; Emihovich et al., 2020; Spencer-Smith et al., 2020). On the other hand, the group of gifted children also showed significant and large differences as compared to controls in an array of basic cognitive IJEP – International Journal of Educational Psychology, 00(0) 16 abilities with a high perceptual load, such as naming, contextual memory, auditory short-term memory, auditory perception, recognition or visual perception. These results align well with recent data demonstrating the enhanced cognitive skills related with verbal comprehension and, critically, visuo-perceptual abilities of moderately gifted and gifted children (see Pezzuti et al., 2022). Together, these data provide tentative support to the hypothesis of an earlier development of biological processes associated with sensoriomotor and linguistic skills in gifted children that later in time may result in a higher IQ as compared to normotypically developing children (Vaivre-Douret, 2011). Taken together, these findings help us quantify and qualify the core cognitive differences between gifted children and those with normotypical intellectual development, while acknowledging that the variability of the intellectual profiles of the sample limits the scope of these findings. Identifying these differences is not only interesting when assessing and recognizing high abilities in children, but also opens the possibility of refining and making more precise interventions aimed at favoring students’ intellectual development in order to maximize their results in different contexts, but especially within the school environment. Applying progressive and scalable cognitive training programs in the classroom environment or in complementary activities according to the level of intelligence can favor a holistic attention to students and achieve the optimization of cognitive abilities, not only for students with high abilities, but also for students with normotypical development or those with greater difficulties. This would lead to an optimization of talents and could have a significant impact on school performance and personal development. Although the results of this study are enlightening and help to answer the main questions initially posed, we deem it essential to continue research on the cognitive profile of gifted individuals to better understand the seemingly intrinsic relationship between intelligence and domain-general cognition. However, a cautionary note is advised when interpreting these results, given that it is important to bear in mind that the school context is multifactorial and that this study only addresses cognitive aspects. Future studies should be directed at collecting a much broader set of variables that consider the holistic and integral vision of educational intervention, so as not to neglect the personal, emotional, and social development of the students. Besides, another Asensio, Duñabeitia & Fernandez-Mera– The Cognitive Profile of Intellectual Giftedness 17 clear-cut limitations of the current study is its cross-sectional nature, which does not allow for solving the existing chicken and egg question arising from the origin of the differences. Whether the enhanced cognitive skills of gifted children boost intellectual abilities, or whether the higher intellectual abilities snowball to cognitive skills is a question that remains open. Future longitudinal and training studies could help us determine the origin of the differences and better characterize the underlying core properties of giftedness. In a nutshell, this study explores the cognitive differences between gifted children and their peers and shows that there are significant differences in their cognitive profiles. These differences are not limited to a particular cognitive domain but are found across different cognitive areas. Additionally, the study suggests that executive functions are more strongly associated with intelligence and are linked to higher IQ in gifted children. The findings can help in the identification of high-ability students and in developing interventions aimed at maximizing their intellectual development. References Abad, F. J., Sánchez-Sánchez, F., & Santamaría, P. (2020). MATRICES-TAI. Test Adaptativo de Inteligencia General. TEA Ediciones. Adler, N. E., Epel, E. S., Castellazzo, G., & Ickovics, J. R. (2000). Relationship of subjective and objective social status with psychological and physiological functioning: Preliminary data in healthy, White women. Health Psychology, 19(6), 586-592. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.19.6.586 Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human Memory: a Proposed System and Its Control Processes. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 2(1), 89-195. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0079- 7421(08)60422-3 Aubry, A., & Bourdin, B. (2021). Alerting, orienting, and executive control in intellectually gifted children. Brain and Behavior, 11(8). https://doi.org/10.1002/brb3.2148 Aubry, A., Gonthier, C., & Bourdin, B. (2021). Explaining the high working memory capacity of gifted children: Contributions of processing skills https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.19.6.586 https://doi.org/10.1016/s0079-7421(08)60422-3 https://doi.org/10.1016/s0079-7421(08)60422-3 https://doi.org/10.1002/brb3.2148 IJEP – International Journal of Educational Psychology, 00(0) 18 and executive control. Acta Psychologica, 218, 103358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2021.103358 Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working Memory. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 8(1), 47-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0079- 7421(08)60452-1 Binet, A., & Simon, Th. (1904). Méthodes nouvelles pour le diagnostic du niveau intellectuel des anormaux. L’année Psychologique, 11(1), 191–244. https://doi.org/10.3406/psy.1904.3675 Borella, E., Pezzuti, L., De Beni, R., & Cornoldi, C. (2019). Intelligence and working memory: evidence from administering the WAIS-IV to Italian adults and elderly. Psychological Research, 84(6), 1622–1634. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-019-01173-7 Breit, M., Brunner, M., & Preckel, F. (2020). General intelligence and specific cognitive abilities in adolescence: Tests of age differentiation, ability differentiation, and their interaction in two large samples. Developmental Psychology, 56(2), 364–384. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000876 Britannica, T. Editors of Encyclopaedia (2021). Intelligence test. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/science/intelligence-test Broadbent, D. E. (1958). Perception and communication. Pergamon Press. https://doi.org/10.1037/10037-000 Bucaille, A., Jarry, C., Allard, J., Brochard, S., Peudenier, S., & Roy, A. (2021). Neuropsychological Profile of Intellectually Gifted Children: A Systematic Review. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1355617721000515 Cao, T. H., Jung, J. Y., & Lee, J. (2017). Assessment in Gifted Education: A Review of the Literature From 2005 to 2016. Journal of Advanced Academics, 28(3), 163–203. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202x17714572 Canivez, G. L., & Watkins, M. W. (1998). Long-term stability of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children—Third Edition. Psychological Assessment, 10(3), 285-291. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.10.3.285 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2021.103358 https://doi.org/10.1016/s0079-7421(08)60452-1 https://doi.org/10.1016/s0079-7421(08)60452-1 https://doi.org/10.3406/psy.1904.3675 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-019-01173-7 https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000876 https://www.britannica.com/science/intelligence-test https://doi.org/10.1037/10037-000 https://doi.org/10.1017/s1355617721000515 https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202x17714572 https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.10.3.285 Asensio, Duñabeitia & Fernandez-Mera– The Cognitive Profile of Intellectual Giftedness 19 Chandler, J. F., Arnold, R. D., Phillips, J. B., & Turnmire, A. E. (2013). Predicting Individual Differences in Response to Sleep Loss: Application of Current Techniques. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 84(9), 927-937. https://doi.org/10.3357/asem.3581.2013 Chekaf, M., Gauvrit, N., Guida, A. & Mathy, F. (2018). Compression in Working Memory and Its Relationship With Fluid Intelligence. Cognitive Science, 42, 904-922. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12601 Chen, Y., Spagna, A., Wu, T., Kim, T. H., Wu, Q., Chen, C., Wu, Y., & Fan, J. (2019). Testing a Cognitive Control Model of Human Intelligence. Scientific Reports, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-39685-2 Conesa, P. J., & Duñabeitia, J. A. (2021). Effects of computer-based training on children’s executive functions and academic achievement. The Journal of Educational Research, 114(6), 562-571. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2021.1998881 Deary, I. J., Johnson, W., & Houlihan, L. M. (2009). Genetic foundations of human intelligence. Human Genetics, 126(1), 215-232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00439-009-0655-4 Debraise, M., Gauvrit, N., & Mathy, F. (2020). Working memory complex span tasks and fluid intelligence: Does the positional structure of the task matter? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-020-01811-x del Rosal, Á. B., Hernández-Jorge, C., & Rodríguez-Naveiras, E. (2011). Evidencias contra el mito de la inadaptación de las personas con altas capacidades intelectuales [Evidence against the myth of adjustment problems of people with high intellectual abilities]. Psicothema, 23(3), 362–367. Diamond, A., & Lee, K. (2011). Interventions Shown to Aid Executive Function Development in Children 4 to 12 Years Old. Science, 333(6045), 959-964. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1204529 Diamond, A. (2013). Executive Functions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64(1), 135-168. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011- 143750 Diamond, A., & Ling, D. S. (2016). Conclusions about interventions, programs, and approaches for improving executive functions that https://doi.org/10.3357/asem.3581.2013 https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12601 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-39685-2 https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2021.1998881 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00439-009-0655-4 https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-020-01811-x https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1204529 IJEP – International Journal of Educational Psychology, 00(0) 20 appear justified and those that, despite much hype, do not. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, 34-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2015.11.005 Dilmurod, R., Akmal, A., & Dostonjon, R. (2020). Research On Effective Ways To Intelligence Quotient Of Perception Through Mobile Games. The American Journal of Applied Sciences, 2(8), 89-95. https://doi.org/10.37547/tajas/volume02issue08-12 Duñabeitia, J. A., Mera, F., Baro, Ó., Jadad-Garcia, T., & Jadad, A. R. (2023). Personalized Computerized Training for Cognitive Dysfunction after COVID-19: A Before-and-After Feasibility Pilot Study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20, 4:3100. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20043100 Emihovich, B., Roque, N., & Mason, J. (2020). Can Video Gameplay Improve Undergraduates’ Problem-Solving Skills? International Journal of Game-Based Learning, 10(2), 21-38. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijgbl.2020040102 Fiorello, C. A., Hale, J. B., McGrath, M., Ryan, K., & Quinn, S. (2002). IQ interpretation for children with flat and variable test profiles. Learning and Individual Differences, 13(2), 115-125. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1041-6080(02)00075-4 Friedman, N. P., & Robbins, T. W. (2021). The role of prefrontal cortex in cognitive control and executive function. Neuropsychopharmacology, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41386-021-01132-0 Fries, J., Kovacs, K., Zeilinger, E. L., & Pietschnig, J. (2022). Is There a “Gifted Personality”? Initial Evidence for Differences between MENSA and General Population Members in the HEXACO Personality Inventory. Journal of Intelligence, 10(4), 92. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence10040092 Gardner, M. (2012). Theories of intelligence. In M. Bray & T. Kehle (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of school psychology. Gignac, G. E. (2015). Raven’s is not a pure measure of general intelligence: Implications for g factor theory and the brief measurement of g. Intelligence, 52, 71-79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2015.07.006 Gow, A. J. (2016). Intelligence and Aging. Encyclopedia of Geropsychology, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-080-3_261-1 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2015.11.005 https://doi.org/10.37547/tajas/volume02issue08-12 https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20043100 https://doi.org/10.4018/ijgbl.2020040102 https://doi.org/10.1016/s1041-6080(02)00075-4 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41386-021-01132-0 https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence10040092 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2015.07.006 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-080-3_261-1 Asensio, Duñabeitia & Fernandez-Mera– The Cognitive Profile of Intellectual Giftedness 21 Gray, S. I., Levy, R., Alt, M., Hogan, T. P., & Cowan, N. (2022). Working Memory Predicts New Word Learning Over and Above Existing Vocabulary and Nonverbal IQ. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 65(3), 1044-1069. https://doi.org/10.1044/2021_jslhr-21-00397 Guignard, J.-H., Kermarrec, S., & Tordjman, S. (2016). Relationships between intelligence and creativity in gifted and non-gifted children. Learning and Individual Differences, 52, 209-215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.07.006 Haimov, I., Hanuka, E., & Horowitz, Y. (2008). Chronic Insomnia and Cognitive Functioning Among Older Adults. Behavioral Sleep Medicine, 6(1), 32-54. https://doi.org/10.1080/15402000701796080 Janos, P. M., & Robinson, N. M. (1985). Psychosocial development in intellectually gifted children. In F. D. Horowitz & M. O'Brien (Eds.), The gifted and talented: Developmental perspectives (pp. 149–195). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10054- 006 Jones, D. T., & Graff-Radford, J. (2021). Executive Dysfunction and the Prefrontal Cortex. CONTINUUM: Lifelong Learning in Neurology, 27(6), 1586-1601. https://doi.org/10.1212/con.0000000000001009 Kaufman, A. S., Netlibrary, I., & Al, E. (2005). Essentials of KABC-II assessment. J. Wiley. Lenth, R. (2020). emmeans: Estimated Marginal Means, aka Least-Squares Means. [R package]. https://cran.r-project.org/package=emmeans. Lezak, M. D. (1982). The Problem of Assessing Executive Functions. International Journal of Psychology, 17(1-4), 281-297. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207598208247445 McCallister, C. J., Nash, W. A., & Meckstroth, E. (1996). The social competence of gifted children: Experiments and experience. Roeper Review, 18(4), 273-276. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783199609553758 Mather, N., & Jaffe, L. (2016). Woodcock-Johnson IV : reports, recommendations, and strategies. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Howerter, A., & Wager, T. D. (2000). The Unity and Diversity of Executive Functions and Their Contributions to Complex “Frontal Lobe” Tasks: A Latent https://doi.org/10.1044/2021_jslhr-21-00397 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.07.006 https://doi.org/10.1080/15402000701796080 https://doi.org/10.1037/10054-006 https://doi.org/10.1037/10054-006 https://doi.org/10.1212/con.0000000000001009 https://cran.r-project.org/package=emmeans https://doi.org/10.1080/00207598208247445 https://doi.org/10.1080/02783199609553758 IJEP – International Journal of Educational Psychology, 00(0) 22 Variable Analysis. Cognitive Psychology, 41(1), 49-100. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1999.0734 Newton, J. H., & McGrew, K. (2010). Introduction to the special issue: Current research in Cattell-Horn-Carroll-based assessment. Psychology in the Schools, 131(4), 621-634. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20495 Norman, D. A., and Shallice, T. (1986). Attention to Action: Willed and Automatic Control of Behaviour. In R. J. Davidson., G. E. Schwartz, and D. E. Shapiro (Eds.), Consciousness and Self-Regulation (pp. 1- 14). Plenum Press. Pezzuti, L., Farese, M., Dawe, J., & Lauriola, M. (2022). The Cognitive Profile of Gifted Children Compared to Those of Their Parents: A Descriptive Study Using the Wechsler Scales. Journal of Intelligence, 10(4), 91. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence10040091 Pfeiffer, S. I. (2015). El Modelo Tripartito sobre la alta capacidad y las mejores prácticas en la evaluación de los más capaces. Revista De Educacion, 368, 66-95. https://doi.org/10.4438/1988-592x-re-2015- 368-293 R Core Team (2021). R: A Language and environment for statistical computing. (Version 4.1) [Computer software]. https://cran.r- project.org. Raven, J. C. (1938a). Standardization of progressive matrices. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 19(1), 137-150. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8341.1941.tb00316.x Raven, J. C. (1938b). Progressive Matrices: A perceptual test of intelligence, 1938, sets A, B, C, D, and E. H. K. Lewis. Reina-Reina, C., Conesa, P.J., & Duñabeitia, J.A. (2023). Impact of a cognitive stimulation program on the reading comprehension of children in primary education. Frontiers in Psychology, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.985790 Renzulli, J. S. (1978). What Makes Giftedness?: Reexamining a Definition. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(8), 81-88. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172171109200821 Roid, G. H., R Andrew Barram, & Netlibrary, I. (2004). Essentials of Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales (SB5) assessment. John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1999.0734 https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20495 https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence10040091 https://doi.org/10.4438/1988-592x-re-2015-368-293 https://doi.org/10.4438/1988-592x-re-2015-368-293 https://cran.r-project.org/ https://cran.r-project.org/ https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8341.1941.tb00316.x https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.985790 https://doi.org/10.1177/003172171109200821 Asensio, Duñabeitia & Fernandez-Mera– The Cognitive Profile of Intellectual Giftedness 23 Rowe, E. W., Dandridge, J., Pawlush, A., Thompson, D. F., & Ferrier, D. E. (2014). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses of the WISC-IV with gifted students. School Psychology Quarterly, 29(4), 536-552. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000009 Schneider, W. J. (2013). What If We Took Our Models Seriously? Estimating Latent Scores in Individuals. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 31(2), 186-201. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282913478046 Schneider, W.J., Flanagan, D.P. (2015). The Relationship Between Theories of Intelligence and Intelligence Tests. In S. Goldstein, D. Princiotta & J. Naglieri (Eds.), Handbook of Intelligence. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-1562-0_21 Schneider, W. J., & Newman, D. A. (2015). Intelligence is multidimensional: Theoretical review and implications of specific cognitive abilities. Human Resource Management Review, 25(1), 12-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2014.09.004 Singmann, H. (2018). afex: Analysis of Factorial Experiments. [R package]. https://cran.r-project.org/package=afex. Sohlberg, M. M., and Mateer, C. A. (1989). Introduction to cognitive rehabilitation: Theory and practice. Guilford Press. Spearman, C. (1904). “General Intelligence,” Objectively Determined and Measured. The American Journal of Psychology, 15(2), 201-293. https://doi.org/10.2307/1412107 Spearman, C. (1927). The abilities of man: Their nature and measurement. Macmillan. Spencer-Smith, M., Quach, J., Mensah, F., Roberts, G., Gathercole, S., Wake, M., & Anderson, P. J. (2020). The Effectiveness of Working Memory Training for Children With Low Working Memory. Pediatrics. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2019-4028 Steiner, H. H., & Carr, M. (2003). Cognitive Development in Gifted Children: Toward a More Precise Understanding of Emerging Differences in Intelligence. Educational Psychology Review, 15(3), 215-246. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1024636317011 Sternberg, R. J. (2012). Intelligence. Cognitive Systems, 14(1), 19-27. https://doi.org/10.31887/dcns.2012.14.1/rsternberg https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000009 https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282913478046 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2014.09.004 https://cran.r-project.org/package=afex https://doi.org/10.2307/1412107 https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2019-4028 https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1024636317011 https://doi.org/10.31887/dcns.2012.14.1/rsternberg IJEP – International Journal of Educational Psychology, 00(0) 24 Takeuchi, H., Taki, Y., Nouchi, R., Yokoyama, R., Kotozaki, Y., Nakagawa, S., Sekiguchi, A., Iizuka, K., Hanawa, S., Araki, T., Miyauchi, C. M., Sakaki, K., Sassa, Y., Nozawa, T., Ikeda, S., Yokota, S., Magistro, D., & Kawashima, R. (2021). General Intelligence Is Associated with Working Memory-Related Functional Connectivity Change: Evidence from a Large-Sample Study. Brain Connectivity, 11(2), 89-102. https://doi.org/10.1089/brain.2020.0769 Tapia, J. L., Rocabado, F., & Duñabeitia, J. A. (2022). Cognitive estimation of speed, movement and time across the lifespan. Journal of Integrative Neuroscience, 21(1), 010. https://doi.org/10.31083/j.jin2101010 The jamovi project (2022). jamovi. (Version 2.3) [Computer Software]. https://www.jamovi.org Thompson, H. J., Demiris, G., Rue, T., Shatil, E., Wilamowska, K., Zaslavsky, O., & Reeder, B. (2011). A Holistic Approach to Assess Older Adults’ Wellness Using e-Health Technologies. Telemedicine and E-Health, 17(10), 794-800. https://doi.org/10.1089/tmj.2011.0059 Vaivre-Douret, L. (2011). Developmental and Cognitive Characteristics of “High-Level Potentialities” (Highly Gifted) Children. International Journal of Pediatrics, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1155/2011/420297 Wai, J., Lakin, J. M., & Kell, H. J. (2022). Specific cognitive aptitudes and gifted samples. Intelligence, 92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2022.101650 Wechsler, D. (2008). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale--Fourth Edition. PsycTESTS Dataset, 4. https://doi.org/10.1037/t15169-00 Wechsler, D. (2014). WISC-V: administration and scoring manual. Psychcorp. Zajda, J. (2019). Current Research of Theories and Models of Intelligence. Curriculum and Teaching, 34(1), 87-108. https://doi.org/10.7459/ct/34.1.07 https://doi.org/10.1089/brain.2020.0769 https://doi.org/10.31083/j.jin2101010 https://www.jamovi.org/ https://doi.org/10.1089/tmj.2011.0059 https://doi.org/10.1155/2011/420297 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2022.101650 https://doi.org/10.1037/t15169-00 https://doi.org/10.7459/ct/34.1.07 Asensio, Duñabeitia & Fernandez-Mera– The Cognitive Profile of Intellectual Giftedness 25 David Asensio: International Chair in Cognitive Health, Universidad Nebrija, Spain ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7114-7817 Ana Fernández-Mera: International Chair in Cognitive Health, Universidad Nebrija, Spain ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2690-3892 Jon Andoni Duñabeitia: International Chair in Cognitive Health, Universidad Nebrija, Spain ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3312-8559 Contact Address: jdunabeitia@nebrija.es https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7114-7817 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2690-3892 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3312-8559 mailto:jdunabeitia@nebrija.es