Intelligence 40 (2012) 100–106

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Intelligence

Bottom–up mechanisms are involved in the relation between accuracy in

timing tasks and intelligence — Further evidence using manipulations of
state motivation
Fredrik Ullén a,⁎, Therese Söderlund b, Lenita Kääriä b, Guy Madison b
a
Dept. of Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, SE-171 77 Stockholm, Sweden
b
Dept. of Psychology, Umeå University, SE-901 87 Umeå, Sweden

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Intelligence correlates with accuracy in various timing tasks. Such correlations could be due to
Received 29 October 2009 both bottom–up mechanisms, e.g. neural properties that influence both temporal accuracy and
Received in revised form 24 January 2012 cognitive processing, and differences in top–down control. We have investigated the timing–
Accepted 24 January 2012 intelligence relation using a simple temporal motor task, isochronous serial interval produc-
Available online 13 February 2012
tion (ISIP), i.e. hand/finger movements with a regular beat. ISIP variability is negatively corre-
lated with intelligence and we have previously argued, based on indirect evidence, that this
Keywords: relation has a bottom–up component. Here, we investigate this question using an experimen-
Timing tal within-subject design in two samples (n = 38 and n = 95 participants, respectively). ISIP
Tapping
was performed under two conditions. In the first condition (Low Motivation), the participants
Incentive
were told that measurements were being made to familiarize them with the task and to cali-
Elementary cognitive tasks
brate the equipment. In the second condition (High Motivation), the participants were told
that the performance would be evaluated and used for scientific analysis, and they were
given a monetary reward depending on how accurately they performed. Temporal accuracy
in the ISIP was higher during High Motivation than during Low Motivation. In both samples,
correlations between ISIP variability and intelligence were similar for both conditions. General
linear models with ISIP variability measures as dependent variables, condition (Low Motiva-
tion or High Motivation) as a repeated-measures variable and intelligence as a between-
subject variable, revealed a significant effect of intelligence, but no effects of incentive, nor
of the intelligence × incentive interaction. We conclude that motivationally driven top–down
mechanisms can influence ISIP performance, but that they play no major role for correlations
between temporal accuracy in ISIP and intelligence. These results provide further support for
that bottom–up mechanisms are involved in relations between temporal accuracy and
intelligence.
© 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Intelligence correlates with accuracy in various tasks that
involve processing of temporal information (Helmbold,
Troche, & Rammsayer, 2007; Madison, Forsman, Blom,
Karabanov, & Ullén, 2009; Rammsayer & Brandler, 2002,
2007; Troche & Rammsayer, 2009; Ullén, Forsman, Blom,
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: Fredrik.Ullen@ki.se (F. Ullén).
Karabanov, & Madison, 2008), but why is this the case? In
principle, such correlations could involve both bottom–up
and top–down mechanisms. This distinction is theoretically
important. If bottom–up mechanisms are involved, it sug-
gests that timing tasks tap basic neural properties that also
play a role for cognition. In this case, temporal accuracy of
neural activity may be a causal factor underlying differences
in intelligence. Top–down mechanisms such as attention, on
the other hand, are likely to be general and influence perfor-
mance in both temporal and non-temporal tasks. If the

0160-2896/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.intell.2012.01.012
 F. Ullén et al. / Intelligence 40 (2012) 100–106
relations between intelligence and temporal tasks depend
solely on differences in top–down control, temporal accuracy
may play no specific roles for cognitive performance.
A number of recent studies have shed light on the nature
of intelligence–timing relations. Rammsayer and coworkers
have demonstrated that performance in temporal judgment
and discrimination tasks that involve maintenance and ma-
nipulation of temporal information in working memory cor-
relates with intelligence (Helmbold et al., 2007; Rammsayer
& Brandler, 2002, 2007). Recent findings from this group
show that intelligence also correlates with discrimination of
non-temporal information (pitch, loudness, brightness) and,
furthermore, that temporal and non-temporal discrimination
abilities are substantially intercorrelated and may reflect a
general discrimination ability that, in turn, is related to intel-
ligence (Troche & Rammsayer, 2009). Interestingly, latent
variable models showed that temporal discrimination ability
predicts speed-related aspects of psychometric intelligence
independently of this general discrimination ability.
We (Forsman, Madison, & Ullén, 2009; Holm, Ullén, &
Madison, 2011; Madison et al., 2009; Ullén et al., 2008)
have studied intelligence–timing relations using a simple
motor timing task, isochronous serial interval production
(ISIP). In this task the participant produces a series of repeti-
tive rhythmic hand or finger movements with a regular beat.
The total variability of the produced temporal intervals can
be divided into local variability (Local) between neighboring
intervals, and drift (Drift), i.e. fluctuations in tempo over sev-
eral intervals. We have previously argued that Local variabil-
ity in ISIP is, at least in part, automatic and inaccessible to
conscious control, whereas Drift may be dependent on
short-term memory of previously produced intervals and
thus more susceptible to top–down influences (Forsman et
al., 2009; Madison & Delignières, 2009; Madison et al., 2009).
Several observations suggest that bottom–up mechanisms
are involved in the ISIP–intelligence relation. Firstly, both
Local and Drift correlate negatively with intelligence
(Madison et al., 2009; Ullén et al., 2008). Secondly, correla-
tions between intelligence and ISIP are strongest for tapping
intervals in the range 0.5–1 s (Madison et al., 2009). A consis-
tent picture from the neuroimaging literature is that motor
timing in the subsecond range loads little on brain regions in-
volved in cognitive control (Lewis & Miall, 2003). Thirdly, no
worst performance rule could be found for the ISIP–intelli-
gence relation (Madison et al., 2009). The worst performance
rule has been observed in studies of reaction times in ele-
mentary cognitive tasks and their correlation with intelli-
gence. It implies that the longest reaction times produced
by an individual predict intelligence better than do the short-
est reaction times (Coyle, 2003). This phenomenon presum-
ably reflects that the longest reaction times occur during
attentional lapses, which are correlated with intelligence
(Coyle, 2003; Schweizer & Moosbrugger, 2004; Unsworth,
Redick, Lakey, & Young, 2010). The absence of a worst perfor-
mance rule for ISIP suggests that lapses of attention are of
minor importance for ISIP–intelligence correlations.
A reasonable hypothesis based on these findings, taken
together, is thus that timing–intelligence relations involve
both top–down and bottom–up mechanisms. Individual dif-
ferences in general top–down control are likely to be in-
volved in general discrimination ability as well as in a
101
portion of the ISIP–intelligence correlations, in particular
with regard to drift. On the other hand, as argued above, sev-
eral findings on ISIP–intelligence relations, as well as the fact
that temporal discrimination ability predicts intelligence
over and above general discrimination ability, suggest that
bottom–up mechanisms are involved as well.
Here, we used a within-subject design to investigate the
nature of the ISIP–intelligence relation further. The objective
was to study the effects of manipulating incentive motivation
during ISIP performance on intelligence–ISIP relations. ISIP
was performed under two conditions. In the first condition
(Low Motivation), the participants were instructed that mea-
surements were being made to familiarize them with the task
and to calibrate the equipment. In the second condition (High
Motivation), the participants were told that the performance
would be evaluated and used for scientific analysis, and that
they would be given a monetary reward depending on how
accurately they performed.
The rationale for the design was as follows. State motiva-
tion can influence performance by recruiting neural circuitry
involved in attentional control to increase selective attention
to task (Pessoa, 2009). If individual differences in such top–
down mechanisms are important for the intelligence–ISIP re-
lation, we would predict higher correlations during the High
Motivation condition, when these mechanisms are recruited,
than during Low Motivation. If, on the other hand, top–down
mechanisms recruited by motivation are of minor impor-
tance for the intelligence–ISIP relation we would expect the
same slope of this relation in both conditions. We tested
these predictions in two samples, using general linear models
with Local or Drift as dependent variables, condition (High or
Low Motivation) as a categorical within-subject factor and
intelligence as a continuous between-subject factor. The
presence of condition × intelligence interactions in these
models would suggest that motivationally controlled top–
down mechanisms are important for relations between ISIP
and intelligence. Sample 1 was a smaller student sample
where intelligence was measured using the Wiener Matrizen
Test. Findings from this sample were replicated in a larger
second sample, where the Raven SPM Plus was used as an in-
telligence measure.
2. Methods
2.1. Participants
2.1.1. Sample 1
The participants were students from Umeå University
(Umeå, Sweden) who took part in the study as part of their
psychology education or were recruited via advertisements
on bulletin boards at the campus. Thirty-eight individuals
agreed to participate. Of these, three had to be excluded due
to erratic performance in the rhythmic tasks. Thirty-five partic-
ipants (18 males) aged 21 to 31 years [mean (M) = 24.9; stan-
dard deviation (SD)= 2.8] were thus included in the analyses.
2.1.2. Sample 2
These participants were recruited through posters on
public bulletin boards in Stockholm and Umeå (Sweden). Of
the 98 participants that agreed to participate, two were ex-
cluded due to erratic performance in the rhythmic tasks,
102 F. Ullén et al. / Intelligence 40 (2012) 100–106
and one due to failure to complete the intelligence test.
Ninety-five participants (39 males) were thus included in
the analyses. Their age ranged from 18 to 49 years
(M = 27.5; SD = 6.5). For two of these participants data
were missing in one of the two conditions due to technical
problems with the recording equipment.
The experimental procedures were undertaken with the
understanding and written consent of each participant and
conformed to The Code of Ethics of the World Medical Asso-
ciation (Declaration of Helsinki). Ethical approval was given
by the Ethical Committee of Umeå University.
2.2. Materials
The ISIP task was implemented in custom designed soft-
ware running on a PC with a real-time operating system. An
Alesis D4 drum module connected via MIDI to the PC pro-
duced the sounds and collected the responses. The temporal
resolution of the system was 1 ms. Stimuli consisted of 20
sampled cowbell sounds presented in isochronous sequence
through Peltor HTB7A sound-attenuated headphones at
78 dBA sound pressure level. The last two sounds were atten-
uated to 72 and 66 dBA, respectively, to reduce the startle re-
action when stimuli cease. The sounds had a supra-threshold
duration of approximately 80 ms. Responses were given by
beating a drumstick against a drum pad with a piezoelectric
element.
In Sample 1, intelligence was estimated using the Wiener
Matrizen Test (WMT). This test is a timed (25 min) 24-item
test which is similar in construction to, and highly correlated
with, Raven's Progressive Matrices test (Formann &
Piswanger, 1979). In Sample 2, intelligence was measured
using the Raven SPM Plus (Raven, Raven, & Court, 2000), an
untimed 60-item version of the Raven's Progressive Matrices
test that is commonly used as a measure of general fluid in-
telligence (Gustafsson, 1984; Jensen, 1998).
A questionnaire with three visual analog scale items was
used to measure subjective motivation during the High Moti-
vation and Low Motivation conditions of the ISIP task, and
the WMT. The participant rated motivation by indicating a
cross on horizontal line that ranged from “not at all motivat-
ed” (left endpoint) to “very motivated” (right endpoint).
During scoring the scale was divided into 10 equal steps so
that scores on each item ranged between 0 and 10. The par-
ticipants were also given questionnaires about creative
achievement and flow experiences, and the NEO personality
questionnaire. Data from these tests are not used in the pre-
sent study. Statistical analyses were performed in Statistica
8.0 (StatSoft, Inc.).
2.3. Procedure
The ISIP task was performed identically in Samples 1 and
2. Each participant was tested individually, sitting upright
on a chair with his or her feet to the floor. The ISIP task was
performed first. As described previously (Madison et al.,
2009), each ISIP trial consisted of an initial synchronization
phase, where the participant synchronized right hand move-
ments with 20 stimulus sounds, followed by a continuation
phase where the participant continued to beat another 30 or
145 times without interruption after the sounds had stopped.
Only the shorter trials (30 beats) were used in the present
study. (The longer trials were collected for an unrelated
study on long-range temporal variability.) This procedure
was repeated for each trial, which had one of four different
stimulus inter-onset-intervals (IOIs) (524, 655, 1024, and
1624 ms). Only the three shorter IOIs were used in the pre-
sent analyses, since earlier studies found that correlations be-
tween intelligence and ISIP variability are weak for IOIs above
1 s (Madison et al., 2009).
The experiment started with three practice trials with the
IOIs 500, 733, and 1044 ms. This was followed by two exper-
imental blocks with eight trials each, first all IOI with 30 re-
sponses and then the same IOIs again with 145 responses.
IOIs were always presented in the same ascending order.
Task instructions differed between the two experimental
blocks. Before one of the blocks, the High Motivation condi-
tion, the participant was told that the performance was
being evaluated and measured and that this was the real ex-
periment. They were guaranteed a monetary reward of 30
Swedish crowns but were told they could receive up to 70
crowns depending on the accuracy of their performance. In
the Low Motivation condition the participants were told
that the purpose of the recording was partly to familiarize
them with the task but mainly to calibrate the instrument
and obtain baseline reference data. The order of the two con-
ditions was counterbalanced across the participants. Partici-
pants with Low Motivation as second condition were given
the same information as participants with Low Motivation
as first condition except that it was not said, for obvious rea-
sons, that it was a purpose of the condition to familiarize
them with the task. In both conditions the participants
were told to read the information appearing on the computer
screen after each sequence. In the Low Motivation condition
the information consisted of a sentence confirming that the
sequence had been registered. In the High Motivation condi-
tion the information was false evaluative performance feed-
back intended to be motivating. The feedback functioned as
a goal-setting promoter and was always the same for every
participant.
After the ISIP task the participants were offered a break of
a few minutes. They were then subjected to the WMT, which
was administered as prescribed in the manual, i.e. with a
25 minute time limit (Formann & Piswanger, 1979). After
this, the participants filled in the questionnaire on subjective
motivation during the ISIP and WMT tasks. Finally, a number
of questionnaires (creative achievement, flow experiences,
NEO personality) that were not used in the present study
were administered.
2.4. Dependent measure computation
The raw number of correct items on the intelligence test
was used as a measure of intelligence. Processing and analy-
sis of the ISIP data followed the procedures developed and
described previously (Madison, 2001; Madison et al., 2009;
Ullén et al., 2008). In brief, only the data from the continua-
tion phases of the experimental trials were used, excluding
the first five data points of each trial. After exclusion of outli-
er intervals, the total variance in ISIP data was partitioned
into two components. Local variability (Local) was estimated
as the variance of difference scores between temporal
 F. Ullén et al. / Intelligence 40 (2012) 100–106 103

intervals two intervals apart, i.e. with a lag 2 difference. This Table 1
estimate is minimally influenced by gradual changes in the ISIP performance under Low and High Motivation.

duration of the produced intervals, i.e. drift. Drift was esti- Low High Repeated measure ANOVA
mated as the remaining portion of the variance, i.e. total var- Motivation Motivation
iance − local variance, which consists mainly of the
Mean SD Mean SD F value p value partial η2
aforementioned drift in the mean interval. Local and Drift
Sample 1
measures for each trial were divided with the mean duration
Local 3.86 1.01 3.52 .88 11.87 .00077 .26
of all intervals in a trial, to make the measures comparable to Drift 2.95 2.15 2.41 1.47 2.94 .048 .080
coefficients of variation. Analyses were based on the within- Sample 2
participant mean values of Local and Drift for all ISIP trials Local 3.80 1.19 3.61 1.24 3.28 .037 .034
with IOIs 524, 655 and 1024 ms (see above). Drift 1.64 1.92 1.46 1.23 1.36 .12 .015

2.5. Statistical analyses

The normality of the distribution of intelligence test
scores was tested using the Shapiro–Wilk W test. Pearson
product-moment correlations were used to examine rela-
tions between ISIP performance and intelligence for descrip-
tive purposes. Effects of incentive motivation on ISIP
performance were calculated using repeated measure ANO-
VAs. Local, Drift or scores on the motivation questionnaire
were used as dependent variable and motivation as a
within-participant categorical predictor (corresponding to
the High Motivation or Low Motivation conditions). General
linear models were used to test whether the degree of im-
provement of performance with incentive was related to in-
telligence, i.e. whether there was a difference in slope in the
intelligence–variability relation depending on motivation.
Here, Local or Drift was used dependent variable, condition
(High Motivation or Low Motivation) as within-subject cate-
gorical factor and intelligence as between-subject indepen-
dent variable.
To test for the importance of task order effects, two addi-
tional analyses were performed in the larger Sample 2. First,
general linear models where task-order and its interactions
with the other independent variables (i.e. task order × moti-
vation, task order × intelligence, and task order × motivatio-
n × intelligence) had been added to the models discussed
above were inspected. The purpose of this analysis was to
see whether task order influenced any motivational influ-
ences on the ISIP–intelligence relation. Secondly, a
between-group analysis was performed, where Sample 2
was split into two subsamples depending on task order. Sub-
sample 2a thus started with Low Motivation, whereas Sub-
sample 2b started with High Motivation. The
intelligence × Local and intelligence × Drift correlations dur-
ing Low Motivation in Subsample 2a were compared with
the corresponding correlations during High Motivation in
Subsample 2b, using a Difference Test for Pearson r:s. In this
analysis, any carry over effects from a previously performed
condition are excluded, since only the first condition per-
formed by each participant is considered.
3. Results
Table 2 summarizes raw correlations between intelli-
gence and ISIP performance. In Sample 1, intelligence was
measured with the WMT test. WMT scores ranged between
8 and 23 (M = 16.0, SD = 3.9). The distribution of scores
was not significantly different from normal (Shapiro–Wilk
W = .96, p = .30). Correlations between ISIP performance
and WMT scores were significant and highly similar in the
two conditions ranging from r = −.40 to r = −.36 (Table 2).
In Sample 2, the Raven SPM Plus was used to measure intel-
ligence. SPM scores ranged from 31 to 60 (M = 46.4,
SD = 6.43), and the distribution did not differ from the nor-
mal (Shapiro–Wilk W = .99, p = .63). Significant correlations
between ISIP performance and SPM scores were found, rang-
ing from r = −.25 to r = −.22 (Table 2).
We next tested for significant effects of condition on the
slope of the intelligence × ISIP relation. For this purpose, we
used general linear models with either Local or Drift as de-
pendent variable, condition as categorical within-subject
factor (High Motivation or Low Motivation) and intelligence
as a between-subject variable. In Sample 1, with Local as de-
pendent variable, there was a significant effect of intelli-
gence [F(1, 33) = 6.9, p = .01, partial η 2 = .17], but no
effects of condition [F(1, 33) = 1.7, p = .2, partial η 2 = .049]
or the interaction condition × intelligence [F(1, 33) = .27,
p = .60, partial η 2 = .0082]. Similarly, when using Drift as a
dependent variable, there was a significant effect of intelli-
gence [F(1,33) = 7.6, p = .01, partial η 2 = .19], but no effects
of condition [F(1, 33) = 1.75, p = .19, partial η 2 = .050] or of
condition × intelligence [F(1, 33) = .91, p = .35, partial
η 2 = .027]. The same pattern of effects was found in Sample
2. With Local as dependent variable, there was a significant
effect of intelligence [F(1, 91) = 7.34, p = .008, partial
η 2 = .075] and no effects of condition [F(1, 91) = .0002,
p = .99, partial η 2 b .00001] or condition × intelligence [F(1,
91) = .056, p = .81, partial η 2 = .00061]. Also for Drift, the ef-
fect of intelligence was significant [F(1, 91) = 6.51, p = .012,
Table 2
Correlations between intelligence and ISIP variability. Pearson r values and
their corresponding p values are provided.
Local Drift

ISIP performance in the two samples is summarized in Low High Low High
Table 1. Repeated measure ANOVAs revealed that perfor- Motivation Motivation Motivation Motivation

mance was significantly more accurate during High Motiva- Sample 1 −.40 −.39 −.39 −.36
tion than Low Motivation in both samples. This was seen (p = .02) (p = .02) (p = .02) (p = .03)
Sample 2 −.24 −.25 −.24 −.22
for Local as well as Drift, with the exception for Drift in Sam-
(p = .02) (p = .01) (p = .02) (p = .04)
ple 2.
104 F. Ullén et al. / Intelligence 40 (2012) 100–106
partial η 2 = .067], while the effects of condition [F(1, 91) =
1.88, p = .17, partial η 2 = .020] and condition × intelligence
[F(1, 91) = 1.50, p = .22, partial η 2 = .016] were not.
To further corroborate that these findings were not con-
founded with task order effects two additional analyses was
performed in the larger Sample 2. The order between Low
Motivation and High Motivation was counterbalanced be-
tween subjects. First, we repeated the analyses above for
Sample 2, including task order as a categorical independent
variable in the model. In this extended model there was, for
Local, still an effect of intelligence [F(1, 89) = 9.75, p = .002,
partial η 2 = .099] while all effects of condition, task order,
motivation and their interactions remained non-significant.
The same pattern was seen for Drift, i.e. the only significant
effect was that of intelligence [F(1, 89) = 8.22, p = .005, par-
tial η 2 = .085].
Secondly, we split Sample 2 into two subsamples using
task order as a grouping variable. Subsample 2a (n = 46)
thus started with Low Motivation, while Subsample 2b
(n = 47) started with High Motivation. This allowed us to
use a between-group design and compare the ISIP × intelli-
gence relation during Low Motivation in Subsample 2a,
which performed Low Motivation first, with the relation
found during High Motivation in Subsample 2b, which per-
formed High Motivation first. By only analyzing the first con-
dition performed by each participant, carry over effects from
a previously performed condition are excluded. For Local, the
relation was r = −.09 in Subsample 2a and r = −.29 in Sub-
sample 2b. This difference in r values was not significant
(p = .33, Difference Test for Pearson r:s). For Drift, the rela-
tion was r = −.13 in Subsample 2a and r = −.30 in Subsam-
ple 2b. This difference in r values was significant (p = .41).
4. Discussion
4.1. Correlations between temporal variability in the ISIP and
intelligence
This study is an investigation of how relations between
temporal variability in the ISIP task and intelligence depend
on state motivation during ISIP. In the Sample 1, intelligence
was measured with the Wiener Matrizen Test, while the
Raven SPM Plus was used in Sample 2. Since the experimen-
tal procedures otherwise were identical and since findings
from the two samples were qualitatively similar they will
be discussed in conjunction. In the ISIP task we employed
interresponse intervals in the range 0.5–1 s, which is the
range where previous studies found the strongest relations
to intelligence (Madison et al., 2009). We thus replicate the
Table 3
Effect sizes of reported relations between ISIP and intelligence. For the present study, the mean of the r values found for High Motivation and Low Motivation are
given.
Study Sample Intelligence test
Madison et al. (2009) 1 Raven SPM Plus
2 Raven SPM Plus
Holm et al. (2011) 1 Raven SPM Plus
Present study 1 Wiener Matrizen Test
2 Raven SPM Plus
Weighted mean
finding from earlier investigations (Holm et al., 2011;
Madison et al., 2009; Ullén et al., 2008) that both Local and
Drift variability in ISIP are negatively related to intelligence.
A summary of all reported relations between intelligence
and the ISIP is provided in Table 3. We have earlier observed
that a somewhat stronger relation to intelligence is seen for
Local than for Drift, across tapping frequencies (Madison et
al., 2009). Overall, this trend holds true also for mean values
across tapping frequencies (Table 3), but the effect size for
both Local and Drift appears to be around r = −.30.
Increasing motivation improved performance in the ISIP.
This improvement was seen both in Local, i.e. variability be-
tween neighboring intervals, and Drift, i.e. more gradual fluc-
tuations in beat period that involve several intervals. The new
key finding in the study is that these effects on ISIP perfor-
mance did not significantly affect relations between ISIP var-
iability and intelligence. There was no statistical difference in
the slope of the relations between ISIP variability and intelli-
gence between the Low Motivation and High Motivation con-
dition, i.e. the interaction between intelligence and
motivation had no effect on Local or Drift. In other words,
the magnitude of the improvement in ISIP performance
with motivation was unrelated to intelligence. The analyses
performed in Sample 2 further support that these effects
are not due to task order confounds, although trends for
higher associations were found for High Motivation.
These results are important, in that they provide direct
evidence for that those top–down mechanisms that were
recruited by increased motivation are not essential for ISIP–
intelligence relations. This provides further support for that
the relations between temporal variability and intelligence
are not only due to individual differences in general top–
down mechanisms that are employed in both temporal and
non-temporal tasks. Earlier evidence for a bottom–up com-
ponent in relations between temporal variability and intelli-
gence were more indirect: (i) both Local and Drift
variability in ISIP correlate with intelligence; (ii) these corre-
lations are strongest for interresponse intervals below 1 s,
which is typically considered to be below the threshold for
cognitive timing; and (iii) ISIP–intelligence relations show
no worst performance rule, i.e. the most variable ISIP trials
do not predict intelligence better than the most stable ones.
The latter result is particularly relevant for the present
findings. For reaction time in elementary cognitive tasks a
worst performance rule is typically found, i.e. the longest re-
action times correlate stronger with intelligence than do the
shortest reaction times (Coyle, 2003). This presumably re-
flects that the longest reaction times occur during lapses in
sustained attention, which in turn are correlated with intelli-
Number of participants Intelligence × Local (r value) Intelligence × Drift (r value)
34 −.44 −.41
30 −.44 −.36
112 −.24 −.19
35 −.40 −.38
95 −.25 −.23
−.30 −.27
 F. Ullén et al. / Intelligence 40 (2012) 100–106
gence (Unsworth et al., 2010). In contrast, it appears that cor-
relations between ISIP variability and intelligence depend lit-
tle on changes in state attention, whether these are due to
spontaneous lapses or — as in the present study — motiva-
tionally driven.
4.2. Top–down and bottom–up mechanisms in relations be-
tween timing tasks and intelligence
In general, individual differences in the function of atten-
tional systems show substantial correlations with intelli-
gence (Schweizer & Moosbrugger, 2004). A priori, one
would therefore predict that attentional mechanisms are
also responsible for a portion of the correlations between
performance in timing tasks and intelligence, in particular
for tasks that require cognitive control, e.g. discriminations
or judgments on temporal intervals maintained in working
memory. Indeed, as summarized in the Introduction, recent
results from the group of Rammsayer (Troche &
Rammsayer, 2009) are in line with this prediction. Temporal
discrimination ability was found to be highly correlated with
a latent general discrimination ability, which influenced dis-
crimination performance across sensory modalities, and
which in turn was related to intelligence. It appears likely
that this general discrimination ability in part corresponds
to individual differences in broad top–down mechanisms
such as the ability to sustain selective attention to one senso-
ry modality or to ignore distracters. However, Troche and
Rammsayer also found that performance in temporal tasks
predicted intelligence over and above general discrimination
ability. This finding is consistent with the present data on
ISIP, which suggests that common neural properties affect
temporal variability and cognitive performance indepen-
dently of attentional control.
We found effects of motivation on both Local and Drift
variability, which would seem to indicate that none of them
tap a pure measure of automatic temporal variability that is
inaccessible to top–down control exclusively. However, we
must caution that Drift is not computationally independent
from Local, since they are both based on the same overall var-
iance across a response series. It remains therefore an open
question whether their dependency is due to an intrinsic re-
lation between the underlying subprocesses or to the way
they are computed. Further development of ISIP variability
measures, e.g. measures that are derived from models of
ISIP performance, may allow more specific estimations of
cognitive and non-cognitive portions of the total variability
in ISIP. Another important question is how ISIP variability re-
lates to variability in reaction time in elementary cognitive
tasks that have been widely used in chronometric intelli-
gence research (Deary, 2000; Jensen, 1992, 2006). Earlier
studies have found a substantial commonality between
choice reaction time and temporal discrimination and judg-
ment tasks (Helmbold et al., 2007). A reasonable hypothesis,
given these findings and the present data, would be that ISIP
shares some top–down control related variance with reaction
time tasks and general discrimination ability, but that there
are also unique contributions to intelligence that represent
more specific roles of temporal variability for cognition, that
are distinct from attention and other cognitive control
mechanisms.
105
We have argued earlier that these specific contributions of
temporal variability to intelligence may represent bottom–up
mechanisms, i.e. basic neural properties that influence both
timing accuracy and intelligence. Previous findings from the
group suggest that the volume of white matter connections
in prefrontal brain regions is one common neural substrate
for intelligence and timing (Ullén et al., 2008). In line with
Jung's and Haier's parieto-frontal model of intelligence
(Jung & Haier, 2007), prefrontal connectivity may thus influ-
ence variability of neuronal activity in fronto-parietal circuits
and this, in turn, is important for intelligence. Clearly, further
work is needed to provide an understanding of how variabil-
ity affects intellectual function. In general terms, it is conceiv-
able that millisecond level precision of neuronal discharges
affects both neural synchronization, which may be a mecha-
nism to dynamically represent both sensory percepts and
cognitive contents (see e.g. Singer, 1999; Uhlhaas & Singer,
2006), and synaptic plasticity (Kampa, Letzkus, & Stuart,
2007).
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by the Swedish Research
Council, the Sven and Dagmar Salén Foundation, the Söder-
berg Foundation, and the Freemasons in Sweden Foundation
for Children's Welfare. We are thankful to Örjan de Manzano
for comments on an earlier version of this manuscript.
References
Coyle, T. R. (2003). A review of the worst performance rule: Evidence, theory
and alternative hypotheses. Intelligence, 31(6), 567–587.
Deary, I. J. (2000). Looking down on human intelligence: From psychometrics to
the brain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Formann, W., & Piswanger, J. (1979). Wiener Matrizen Test [Vienna Matrices
Test]. Göttingen: Hogrefe Verlag.
Forsman, L., Madison, G., & Ullén, F. (2009). Neuroticism is correlated with
drift in serial time interval production. Personality and Individual Differ-
ences, 47(3), 229–232.
Gustafsson, J. -E. (1984). A unifying model for the structure of intellectual
abilities. Intelligence, 8, 179–203.
Helmbold, N., Troche, S., & Rammsayer, T. (2007). Processing of temporal
and nontemporal information as predictors of psychometric intelli-
gence: A structural-equation-modeling approach. Journal of Personality,
75(5), 985–1006.
Holm, L., Ullén, F., & Madison, G. (2011). Intelligence and temporal accuracy
of behavior: Unique and shared associations with reaction time and
motor timing. Experimental Brain Research, 214(2), 175–183.
Jensen, A. R. (1992). The importance of intraindividual variation in reaction-
time. Personality and Individual Differences, 13(8), 869–881.
Jensen, A. R. (1998). The g factor. Westport: Praeger Publishers.
Jensen, A. R. (2006). Clocking the mind: Mental chronometry and individual
differences. Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Jung, R. E., & Haier, R. J. (2007). The Parieto-Frontal Integration Theory (P-
FIT) of intelligence: Converging neuroimaging evidence. The Behavioral
and Brain Sciences, 30(2), 135–154.
Kampa, B. M., Letzkus, J. J., & Stuart, G. J. (2007). Dendritic mechanisms con-
trolling spike-timing-dependent synaptic plasticity. Trends in Neurosci-
ences, 30(9), 456–463.
Lewis, P. A., & Miall, R. C. (2003). Distinct systems for automatic and cogni-
tively controlled time measurement: Evidence from neuroimaging. Cur-
rent Opinion in Neurobiology, 13(2), 250–255.
Madison, G. (2001). Variability in isochronous tapping: Higher-order depen-
dencies as a function of inter tap interval. Journal of Experimental Psy-
chology. Human Perception and Performance, 27, 411–422.
Madison, G., & Delignières, D. (2009). Effects of auditory feedback on the
long-range correlation of isochronous serial interval production. Experi-
mental Brain Research, 193(4), 519–527.
106 F. Ullén et al. / Intelligence 40 (2012) 100–106
Madison, G., Forsman, L., Blom, Ö., Karabanov, A., & Ullén, F. (2009). Correla-
tions between general intelligence and components of serial timing var-
iability. Intelligence, 37(1), 68–75.
Pessoa, L. (2009). How do emotion and motivation direct executive control?
Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(4), 160–166.
Rammsayer, T. H., & Brandler, S. (2002). On the relationship between general
fluid intelligence and psychophysical indicators of temporal resolution
in the brain. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 507–530.
Rammsayer, T. H., & Brandler, S. (2007). Performance on temporal informa-
tion processing as an index of general intelligence. Intelligence, 35(2),
123–139.
Raven, J., Raven, J. C., & Court, J. H. (2000). Manual for Raven's Progressive Ma-
trices and Vocabulary Scales. Section 3: The Standard Progressive Matrices.
San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment.
Schweizer, K., & Moosbrugger, H. (2004). Attention and working memory as
predictors of intelligence. Intelligence, 32(4), 329–347.
Singer, W. (1999). Neuronal synchrony: A versatile code of the definition of
relations? Neuron, 24, 49–65.
Troche, S. J., & Rammsayer, T. H. (2009). Temporal and non-temporal sensory
discrimination and their predictions of capacity- and speed-related as-
pects of psychometric intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences,
47(1), 52–57.
Uhlhaas, P. J., & Singer, W. (2006). Neural synchrony in brain disorders: Rele-
vance for cognitive dysfunctions and pathophysiology. Neuron, 52,
155–168.
Ullén, F., Forsman, L., Blom, Ö., Karabanov, A., & Madison, G. (2008). Intelli-
gence and variability in a simple timing task share neural substrates in
the prefrontal white matter. Journal of Neuroscience, 28(16), 4238–4243.
Unsworth, N., Redick, T. S., Lakey, C. E., & Young, D. L. (2010). Lapses in sus-
tained attention and their relation to executive control and fluid abili-
ties: An individual differences investigation. Intelligence, 38(1), 111–122.