Processing of Temporal and Nontemporal Information as Predictors of Psychometric Intelligence: A Structural‐Equation‐Modeling Approach

Helmbold, Nadine; Troche, Stefan J.; Rammsayer, Thomas

doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2007.00463.x

Cited by 45 publications

(50 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They are often smaller when they are measured with the method of single stimuli and meaningfully larger when they are measured with the 2AFC task (Kim & Mayer, 1994;Norman et al, 2008). Finally, studies on interindividual differences for temporal discrimination have documented that DLs in 2AFC tasks vary greatly across observers (Helmbold, Troche, & Rammsayer, 2007, Table 2). In conclusion, a cutoff of 100 msec is unjustified, because it would particularly censor the right tail of the DL distribution in the 2AFC condition (see Figure 4).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

DLs in reminder and 2AFC tasks: Data and models

Ulrich

2010

Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Lapid, Ulrich, and Rammsayer (2008) compared the discrimination performance for two psychophysical methods -that is, the (temporal) two-alternative forced choice (2AFC) task and the reminder task. They reported generally higher difference limens (DLs) for the 2AFC than for the reminder task and attributed this difference to a particular feature of the 2AFC task. García-Pérez and Alcalá-Quintana (2010) performed a reanalysis of Lapid et al.'s data, using a different psychometric function than Lapid et al. In contrast to Lapid et al., these authors reach the opposite conclusion that the two tasks produce similar DL estimates. In this response to their article, it will be shown that DLs are indeed larger in 2AFC tasks than in reminder tasks, contrary to García-Pérez and Alcalá-Quintana's reanalysis. In particular, (1) the conclusions of Lapid et al. are confirmed by further reanalyses that rely on fewer assumptions than do either the original analyses of Lapid et al. or the reanalyses of García-Pérez and Alcalá-Quintana, and (2) the reanalyses of García-Pérez and Alcalá-Quintana are based on demonstrably false assumptions that lead to inappropriate estimates of DL.This article consists of three parts. In the first part, I outline the assumptions of the psychometric functions employed in Lapid et al. (2008). This part also introduces the mathematical/technical background of 2AFC psychometric functions and the customary approaches for estimating the DL in 2AFC tasks. Readers who are interested mainly in the data reanalysis should skip this part. In the second part, I rechecked the data in Lapid et al. to settle the empirical question. I performed analyses that did not require specific assumptions about the proper psychometric function or about lapses. In addition, I also performed analyses with an improved version of García-Pérez and Alcalá-Quintana's (2010) logistic psychometric function. The results of these were clear-cut. DLs are meaningfully larger (by about 50% or slightly more) for the 2AFC than for the reminder task. At the end of this second part, I review the work of Ulrich and Vorberg (2009) and explain why this effect occurs. In the third part, I critically evaluate the assumptions underlying García-Pérez and Alcalá-Quintana's 2AFC analysis. I highlight the problems associated with these assumptions and show how these problems cause them to misinterpret Lapid et al.'s results. This part also critically assesses the psychophysical reality of the difference model with guessing that they propose as an explanation of Lapid et al.'s results. The third part concludes with some additional remarks about García-Pérez and Alcalá-Quintana. BACKGROUND ON PSYCHOPHYSICAL TASKS AND PSYCHOMETRIC FUNCTIONS

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

DLs in reminder and 2AFC tasks: Data and models

Ulrich

2010

Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Performance on such tasks is positively related to intelligence (Rammsayer and Brandler 2002;Helmbold and Rammsayer 2006;Helmbold et al 2007;Rammsayer and Brandler 2007;Troche and Rammsayer 2009), and the timing tasks are also positively correlated with each other as well as with mean RT and RTSD in RT tasks (Rammsayer and Brandler 2002;Rammsayer and Brandler 2007).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Analyses using structural equation modelling support that a common latent variable, which could be tentatively described as a general temporal accuracy factor, mediate the observed relations (Helmbold et al 2007). …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intelligence and temporal accuracy of behaviour: unique and shared associations with reaction time and motor timing

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Intelligence and temporal accuracy of behavior: unique and shared associations with reaction time and motor timing Experimental Brain Research, 2011, Vol. 214, Issue 2, p. 175 -183 doi 10.1007/s00221-011-2817 Access to the published version may require subscription. Published with permission from: Springer AbstractIntelligence is associated with accuracy in a wide range of timing tasks. One source of such associations is likely to be individual differences in top-down control, e.g. sustained attention, that influence performance in both temporal tasks and other cognitively controlled behaviors.In addition, we have studied relations between intelligence and a simple rhythmic motor task, isochronous serial interval production (ISIP), and found a substantial component of that relation, which is independent of fluctuations in top-down control. The main purpose of the present study was to investigate whether such bottom-up mechanisms are involved also in the relation between intelligence and reaction time (RT) tasks. We thus investigated if common variance between the ISIP and RT tasks underlies their respective associations with intelligence. 112 participants performed a simple RT task, a choice RT task and the ISIP task.Intelligence was assessed with the Raven SPM Plus. The analysed timing variables included mean and variability in the RT tasks and two variance components in the ISIP task. As predicted, RT and ISIP variables were associated with intelligence. The timing variables were positively intercorrelated and a principal component analysis revealed a substantial first principal component that was strongly related to all timing variables, and positively correlated with intelligence. Furthermore, a commonality analysis demonstrated that the relations between intelligence and the timing variables involved a commonality between the timing variables as well as unique contributions from choice RT and ISIP. We discuss possible implications of these findings, and argue that they support our main hypothesis, i.e. that relations between intelligence and RT tasks have a bottom-up component.

show abstract

“…For example, does a complex sensory temporal task such as Morse code recognition rely on the same circuits as generating Morse code? Although accuracy in sensory and production tasks is correlated (Ivry & Hazeltine 1995;Merchant et al 2008), it is not known whether such correlations reflect a shared timer or common performance, memory or cognitive factors (Helmbold et al 2007). -Centralized versus local.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of the interstimulus interval on temporal processing and learning: testing the state-dependent network model

Buonomano

Bramen

Khodadadifar

2009

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ability to determine the interval and duration of sensory events is fundamental to most forms of sensory processing, including speech and music perception. Recent experimental data support the notion that different mechanisms underlie temporal processing in the subsecond and suprasecond range. Here, we examine the predictions of one class of subsecond timing models: state-dependent networks. We establish that the interval between the comparison and the test interval, interstimulus interval (ISI ), in a two-interval forced-choice discrimination task, alters the accuracy of interval discrimination but not the point of subjective equality-i.e. while timing was impaired, subjective time contraction or expansion was not observed. We also examined whether the deficit in temporal processing produced by short ISIs can be reduced by learning, and determined the generalization patterns. These results show that training subjects on a task using a short or long ISI produces dramatically different generalization patterns, suggesting different forms of perceptual learning are being engaged. Together, our results are consistent with the notion that timing in the range of hundreds of milliseconds is local as opposed to centralized, and that rapid stimulus presentation rates impair temporal discrimination. This interference is, however, decreased if the stimuli are presented to different sensory channels.

show abstract

Processing of Temporal and Nontemporal Information as Predictors of Psychometric Intelligence: A Structural‐Equation‐Modeling Approach

Cited by 45 publications

References 43 publications

DLs in reminder and 2AFC tasks: Data and models

DLs in reminder and 2AFC tasks: Data and models

Intelligence and temporal accuracy of behaviour: unique and shared associations with reaction time and motor timing

Influence of the interstimulus interval on temporal processing and learning: testing the state-dependent network model

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About