Does Brain Research Finally Confirm What We've Suspected About Giftedness for Years?

What exactly is giftedness? It is a question that has occupied researchers for more than a century. Over the years, numerous theories of intelligence and models of giftedness have emerged, each with its own perspective on cognitive potential, talent, and development.

In a recent review article published in the International Journal of Developmental Neuroscience, Reuwsaat and colleagues (2026) bring this evolution together in a clear and accessible way. They provide a concise yet comprehensive historical overview of the major theories of intelligence and giftedness and then compare them with recent findings from neuroscience. In doing so, the article not only offers a valuable introduction for readers who want to better understand the history of the field, but also builds a bridge between classical theoretical models and contemporary brain research.

Perhaps the most interesting conclusion is that recent findings from neuroscience appear to support a distinction that has long been made in several models of giftedness: cognitive potential is not the same as developed talent or expertise. According to the authors, there is growing evidence that the two are associated with partly different neural mechanisms and developmental processes.

To be honest, this did not feel like a revolution to me. Quite the opposite. As I read the article, I kept thinking: I've seen this somewhere before.

What Does Brain Research Actually Show?

The review article describes that, on average, gifted individuals have more efficient and better integrated brain networks (Reuwsaat et al., 2026). They show differences in both white and gray matter, process information more quickly on average, and use their brains more efficiently during cognitive tasks. These are characteristics associated with high cognitive potential.

At the same time, the authors discuss research on individuals with exceptional talents, for example in mathematics or music. Here, the focus is less on the brain's overall organization and more on specific brain regions and neural circuits involved in a particular domain. Through prolonged practice, experience, and neuroplasticity, these brain regions can become increasingly specialized and refined. The authors therefore argue that general giftedness and domain-specific talent are associated with partly different neurocognitive mechanisms.

This is an important insight. It suggests that the brain differs not only between gifted and average-ability individuals, but also between cognitive potential and developed expertise.

Not a New Idea, but Strong Confirmation

Remarkably, this aligns closely with a distinction that has existed in the giftedness literature for much longer.

Françoys Gagné introduced his Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent (DMGT) as early as the 1980s (Gagné, 2004). The word differentiated refers literally to something that is "distinguished" or "differentiated": the model makes a clear distinction between giftedness (cognitive potential) and talent (developed expertise). Gagné described giftedness as high natural ability, for example in the cognitive domain. Talent develops when that potential, under the influence of practice, motivation, and a supportive environment, is transformed into exceptional performance.

The review article builds on this foundation with a new Differential Model of Giftedness and Talent. Although the two names are very similar, their meanings differ in a subtle but important way. Whereas differentiated primarily refers to the distinction between two concepts, differential emphasizes that the two developmental processes themselves may follow different pathways. The difference can be summarized as follows: differentiated means, "We distinguish between giftedness and talent." In contrast, differential in this model means, "Giftedness and talent may each have their own developmental trajectory." The authors argue that cognitive potential and domain-specific talent may be associated with partly different neurobiological developmental processes. In this model as well, cognitive potential is positioned on the left and developed expertise on the right, while motivation, creativity, engagement, perseverance, and environmental factors influence both processes.

For me, this was perhaps the most compelling observation while reading the article. Not because it introduced an entirely new theory, but because recent findings from neuroscience build on a distinction that has been part of the field for decades and now add a possible neurobiological explanation for it.

A Striking Similarity—and an Interesting Difference

As I read the article, I noticed not only clear parallels with Gagné's model (2004), but also striking similarities with the Project TALENT Cognitive Talent Development Model (Verschueren et al., 2017).

The similarities are substantial. All three models make a clear distinction between cognitive potential and developed expertise or high achievement. In addition, they recognize that personal characteristics—such as motivation, creativity, engagement, and perseverance—as well as environmental factors such as education, parenting, and opportunities play an important role in how an individual develops over time.

At the same time, the new Differential Model of Giftedness and Talent places a different emphasis. Whereas Gagné's model and the Project TALENT model primarily describe how cognitive potential can develop under the influence of personal and environmental factors, the new model also attempts to provide a neurobiological explanation for the differences between cognitive giftedness and domain-specific talent.

According to the authors, there is growing evidence that general cognitive giftedness is associated with a more efficient organization and integration of brain networks, whereas domain-specific talents are more closely associated with specialized brain regions and neural circuits that become further refined through practice and experience as a result of neuroplasticity. Both processes are influenced by the same personal and environmental factors, but they appear to follow partly different neurobiological mechanisms.

This immediately reminded me of the distinction we make within Project TALENT between cognitive giftedness and high achievement. Although the model takes a different perspective, it is also based on the idea that these two dimensions do not completely overlap. Some cognitively gifted students achieve at an exceptional level, while others underachieve or do not fully develop their potential. Conversely, there are also students who perform at a high level without possessing exceptional cognitive potential (Verschueren et al., 2017).

For that reason, we increasingly use the term Cognitively Strong Functioning (CSF). This term highlights that cognitive giftedness and high achievement can overlap without being identical. It is precisely this nuance that also seems to be reflected in the new Differential Model (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. Differential Model of Giftedness and Talent (Reuwsaat et al., 2026)

An additional implication of this perspective is that motivation, creativity, engagement, and perseverance also take on a different role. In both the new Differential Model and the models proposed by Gagné and the Project TALENT Cognitive Talent Development Model, these are not regarded as characteristics that define cognitive giftedness. Rather, they are seen as factors that help determine how cognitive potential and talent develop. They influence the developmental process, but in themselves they do not reveal anything about a person's underlying cognitive potential.

This closely aligns with the distinction we have been making for some time between cognitive learning characteristics and non-cognitive personal characteristics. Cognitive learning characteristics—such as a rapid rate of learning, the ability to make complex connections, requiring little repetition, or strong problem-solving skills—help us recognize a student's cognitive potential. Personal characteristics, such as motivation, creativity, perfectionism, or perseverance, may either support or hinder the development of that potential, but they are not reliable indicators for identifying cognitive giftedness itself.

What Does This Mean in Practice?

Although this review article is primarily theoretical in nature, it has important implications for practice.

For educators, it once again confirms that cognitive potential and academic achievement do not automatically go hand in hand. A student who underachieves, appears unmotivated, or seems to put forth little effort is not necessarily less cognitively gifted. Conversely, outstanding academic performance does not necessarily indicate exceptional cognitive potential. For this reason, professionals who want to identify cognitively gifted students should look beyond grades and behavior and also pay attention to how students think and learn.

This distinction is equally relevant for healthcare professionals. Assessment should not be limited to observable achievement or behavioral characteristics, but should take a broad view of both cognitive potential and current functioning. This is especially important when working with twice-exceptional children, adolescents, and adults, where giftedness and conditions such as ADHD, autism, or dyslexia may mask one another or, conversely, amplify each other. A solid understanding of the underlying theoretical models helps professionals piece together this complex puzzle more accurately.

The article also emphasizes that recognizing cognitive giftedness is only the first step. Equally important is creating an environment in which that potential can develop. Challenge, practice, guidance, motivation, and a stimulating learning environment all help determine whether cognitive potential can ultimately develop into talent or exceptional achievement.

Perhaps this is ultimately the greatest strength of the review article. Not that it introduces an entirely new definition of giftedness, but that it builds a bridge between more than a century of research on intelligence and giftedness and the latest findings from neuroscience. The authors provide a clear and concise overview of the evolution of the field, from Galton, Binet, Spearman, and Terman to CHC theory and the models of researchers such as Renzulli, Gardner, Sternberg, and Gagné. At the same time, they show how recent findings from neuroscience can further refine and deepen several of these theoretical models.

That is precisely why, at Hoogbloeier®, we devote so much attention to these models. They are much more than historical theories—they help educators and healthcare professionals make better-informed decisions about identification, assessment, support, and education. Understanding how different researchers conceptualize intelligence, cognitive potential, and talent also helps explain why the definition of giftedness remains the subject of scientific debate today.

That is why, in our module Introduction to Models of Giftedness (September 28, Leuven), we examine the major models of giftedness and place them in their historical context. In the follow-up module, From Terman to Today: The History of Intelligence Research (October 28, Leuven), we take a deeper look at the evolution of theories of intelligence and their relevance for contemporary practice. Because the better we understand what we are actually identifying—and what we are trying to develop—the greater the likelihood that cognitive potential can truly develop into talent. (All trainings in Dutch).

Discover our modules

References

• Gagné, F. (2004). Transforming gifts into talents: the DMGT as a developmental theory. High Ability Studies, 15(2), 119-147.

• Reuwsaat, K., Poltronieri, B., Panizzutti, R., & Velasques, B. (2026). Giftedness: A critical analysis of theories and identification methods in light of contemporary neuroscience. International Journal of Developmental Neuroscience, 86, e70126. https://doi.org/10.1002/jdn.70126

• Verschueren, K., Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Donche, V., Struyf, E., & De Fraine, B. (2017). Tailoring education and care to talents of youth [Grant]. Belgium.
  
  

Copyright © 2026 Dr. Sabine Sypré – All rights reserved. No part of this article may be reproduced in any form or by any means, whether electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without prior written permission from the author. Sharing online is permitted provided the author is credited and a link to this article is included.