52(2014),

Psychophysiology, •• (2015),••–••.
544–554.
WileyWiley Periodicals,
Periodicals, Inc. Printed
Inc. Printed in the in the USA.
USA.
C 2014 Society for Psychophysiological
Copyright ©
V Psychophysiological Research
Research
10.1111/psyp.12367
DOI: 10.1111/psyp.12367

Arithmetic and algebraic problem solving and resource allocation:

The distinct impact of fluid and numerical intelligence

ANNIKA DIX and ELKE van der MEER

Department of Psychology, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, & Berlin School of Mind and Brain, Berlin, Germany

Abstract
This study investigates cognitive resource allocation dependent on fluid and numerical intelligence in arithmetic/
algebraic tasks varying in difficulty. Sixty-six 11th grade students participated in a mathematical verification paradigm,
while pupil dilation as a measure of resource allocation was collected. Students with high fluid intelligence solved the
tasks faster and more accurately than those with average fluid intelligence, as did students with high compared to average
numerical intelligence. However, fluid intelligence sped up response times only in students with average but not high
numerical intelligence. Further, high fluid but not numerical intelligence led to greater task-related pupil dilation. We
assume that fluid intelligence serves as a domain-general resource that helps to tackle problems for which domain-
specific knowledge (numerical intelligence) is missing. The allocation of this resource can be measured by pupil dilation.
Descriptors: Phasic pupil dilation, Arithmetic, Algebra, Fluid intelligence, Numerical intelligence, Individual
differences

Fluid intelligence (FI) plays a crucial role in mathematical achieve-
ment. FI refers to abilities that are required in order to execute
reasoning processes successfully. It allows people to think flexibly
and to solve new problems effectively (Cattell, 1987). This implies
that FI enables people to identify complex relations by selecting
relevant and inhibiting irrelevant information. Individuals with
high FI solve reasoning tasks faster than individuals with average
FI (van der Meer, 1996). Gallagher (1989) found that the perfor-
mance on the mathematical subtest of the Scholastic Aptitude Test
(SAT Mathematics) was predicted best out of several variables (FI,
visual-spatial abilities, learning style, and verbal subtest of the
SAT) by FI, as measured through Raven’s advanced progressive
matrices (RAPM; Raven, 1958). However, it remains unclear how
FI allows subjects to perform better. Van der Meer et al. (2010)
point to FI-related differences in the allocation of cognitive
resources—indicated by the pupillary response—that underlie per-
formance differences in a geometric analogy task. Their findings
suggest that pupillometry might be an appropriate measure to
investigate sources of individual differences in mathematical
cognition.
This research was supported by grants from the German
Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF; Programme: Neu-
roscience Instruction Learning). We thank Nicole Nowacka and Dorothea
Reiter for support in data acquisition, and Jan Ries for technical advice.
This work benefited from valuable discussions with Manja Foth, Gesa
Schaadt, and Boris Bornemann. The authors thank Gesa Schaadt, Boris
Bornemann, and Christin Arndt for language editing.
Address correspondence to: Annika Dix, Institut für Psychologie,
Kognitive Psychologie, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Rudower
Chaussee 18, 12489 Berlin, Germany. E-mail: annika.dix@hu-berlin.de
544
1
Pupillary Response as an Indicator of Cognitive Load
The task-evoked pupil dilation (PD) is a measure of processing
load (Beatty & Lucero-Wagoner, 2000). PD increases with increas-
ing task difficulty (Karatekin, 2004; Landgraf, van der Meer, &
Krüger, 2010). Two theories that explain this relationship between
pupil diameter and processing load are:
1. Changes in pupil diameter are related to activation changes
of the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous system
(Steinhauer, Siegle, Condray, & Pless, 2004). Although the
structures for regulation of pupil size, such as the Edinger-
Westphal nucleus, are subcortical, their activity is modulated by
cortical regions. Steinhauer et al. (2004) investigated the influ-
ence of sympathetic and parasympathetic pathways on the
pupillary response during less (add 1) or more (subtract 7)
cognitively demanding processing. They were able to identify
the neural dynamics behind this effect: direct cortical and
indirect corticothalamic-hypothalamic pathways inhibit the
Edinger-Westphal complex of the oculomotor nucleus in the
midbrain. This leads to the relaxation of the parasympathetically
driven sphincter muscles and thereby to the dilation of the pupil
(Lowenstein, 1955). The authors ascertained that one part of
change in pupil diameter was associated with sympathetic acti-
vation and another with the inhibition of the parasympathetic
pathway. Beyond that, an additional component of parasympa-
thetic inhibition was detectable, although only in the cognitive
demanding condition, which most probably requires frontal cor-
tical functioning.
2. The adaptive gain theory of locus coeruleus-norepinephrine
(LC-NE) function (Aston-Jones & Cohen, 2005) proposes that
the pupil diameter probably indexes LC activity. There are two
modes of LC activity that control neuromodulatory effects
Arithmetic
2 and algebraic problem solving
of norepinephric projections on the neocortex and thereby
influence task engagement. The tonic activity of the LC-NE
system supports the exploration of the environment by high base
rate neuron firing, allowing sensitivity to all kinds of stimuli
(low task engagement). The phasic activity selectively facili-
tates responses to task-relevant processes by accentuated firing
while filtering responses to irrelevant events (high task
engagement).
We argue that these two theories are not independent, but
interrelated with each other. Actually, the same hypothalamic path-
ways that drive the sympathetic nervous system are the major
afferents to the LC (Aston-Jones, Ennis, Pieribone, Nickell, &
Shipley, 1986) suggesting that both systems function parallel to
each other.
Altogether, PD reflects cognitive resource allocation and is
related to LC activity, which excites the cortex and concomitant
sympathetic arousal, as well as parasympathetic inhibition, which
is the result of frontal cortical activity. In this study, we used the
pupillary response to investigate cognitive resource allocation. Our
first aim was to figure out how individuals with high FI allocate
cognitive resources compared to individuals with lower FI, when
they are solving different mathematical tasks.
FI and Cognitive Resources
There are three hypotheses that put cognitive resources into relation
with FI and superior performance: First, the efficiency hypothesis
considers efficiency in neural functioning as the defining criterion
of FI (Brand, 1984) and, hence, more fluid intelligent individuals
are expected to spend less mental effort for solving a problem than
less fluid intelligent individuals. In other words, they make efficient
use of their resources. Second, the effort hypothesis assumes a
reverse correlation between FI and the allocation of cognitive
resources. That is, more fluid intelligent individuals spend more
mental effort for solving a problem than less fluid intelligent indi-
viduals. They put more effort (resources) into the task. Third, the
resource hypothesis states that differences in the amount of
invested resources depend on task difficulty (for review, see Just,
Carpenter, & Miyake, 2003). More fluid intelligent individuals
invest more cognitive resources than less fluid intelligent individ-
uals, but only for solving demanding problems. Findings of van der
Meer et al. (2010), who applied a geometric analogy task, concur
with this resource hypothesis.
Early studies mostly confirmed the efficiency hypothesis
(Ahern & Beatty, 1979). However, more recent studies reveal some
important moderator variables, such as task difficulty, novelty,
and method (for review, see Neubauer & Fink, 2009). Briefly,
neural efficiency is assumed to be present only in tasks of low to
moderate task difficulty and most often seems to concern frontal
brain regions (Preusse, van der Meer, Deshpande, Krüger, &
Wartenburger, 2011; Preusse et al., 2010). With this in mind, it
appears to be crucial to inspect the impact of task demands and
other potential moderating factors on the relationship between FI
and resource allocation in mathematical cognition in more detail.
Mathematical Cognition, Numerical Intelligence, and
Cognitive Resources
In order to examine cognitive resource allocation as one source of
individual difference in mathematical performance, one should
also consider other influencing factors apart from FI. Actually,
mathematical cognition depends on retrieval of learned facts and
545
A. Dix and E. van der Meer
rules as well (Menon, 2010). Neural efficiency most likely emerges
after the acquisition of appropriate task-solving strategies
(Neubauer & Fink, 2009). For instance, Grabner et al. (2007) dis-
covered that individuals with higher numerical intelligence (NI)
rely more strongly on fact retrieval when solving multiplication
problems. Ahern and Beatty (1979) reported a more efficient pro-
cessing of simple, overlearned multiplication tasks across all levels
of difficulty—measured by phasic PD—by more intelligent indi-
viduals (measured by SAT). In contrast and in accordance with the
resource hypothesis, in the pupillometric study of van der Meer
et al. (2010), students with high FI outperformed controls with
average abilities mainly in the most demanding problems of a
geometric analogy task, to which they allocated more cognitive
resources than average FI controls. This emphasizes the importance
of investigating the roles of task type and prior knowledge when
trying to understand how high-FI individuals allocate cognitive
resources. Therefore, the current study aimed at testing (a) whether
the findings of van der Meer et al. (2010) can be generalized to
other mathematical subdomains (cf. Bornemann et al., 2010),
namely, arithmetic and algebra, and (b) whether they are only
specific for FI or also for NI.
The Current Study
The main goal of the current study was to characterize the relation-
ship between FI, NI, mathematical performance, and resource
allocation. We compared individuals with high and average FI
and NI in the processing of arithmetic and algebraic tasks with
varying difficulty. We contrasted the effects of FI (measured by
RAPM; Raven, 1958) with those of NI (measured by Berliner
Intelligenzstruktur-Test, BIS; Jäger, Süß, & Beauducel, 1997) to
compare their impact on solving different mathematical problems.
Both intelligence measures are partly related to each other (for
details concerning the link between FI and NI, see Beauducel,
Brocke, & Liepmann, 2001; Beauducel & Kersting, 2002), and are
associated with mathematical abilities. Due to this overlap, one
could expect similar effects of NI and FI not only on task perfor-
mance, but also on cognitive resource allocation in mathematical
cognition. On the other hand, findings on resource allocation and
its relation to intelligence are contradictory and might be specific to
the intelligence facet and the mathematical domain assessed. As
outlined above, higher NI was associated with higher neural effi-
ciency in arithmetic problems (Grabner et al., 2007), whereas
higher FI led to the allocation of more cognitive resources, that is,
lower neural efficiency in geometric analogy tasks (van der Meer
et al., 2010). Thus, we assume that NI supports a more efficient
processing of simple mathematical tasks, whereas FI enables an
individual to allocate more cognitive resources to solve difficult
tasks.
In this study, we made the following predictions: First, we
assumed that individuals with high FI and NI would outperform
individuals with average FI and NI (shorter response times, fewer
errors). Second, task difficulty was manipulated so that the most
difficult tasks were constituted of a combination of the easier ones.
Therefore, we expected the performance on difficult tasks to be
partly predictable by the performance on their constituents—the
easier tasks. We also assumed an additional distinct impact of FI,
but not NI, on the performance in the difficult tasks, because FI
allows for greater flexibility especially when dealing with new
requirements compared to NI. Third, we aimed at extending find-
ings of van der Meer et al. (2010) on resource allocation in geo-
metric analogy tasks to other mathematical subdomains. Thus, we
546
Arithmetic and algebraic problem solving
expected individuals with high FI to allocate more cognitive
resources (greater phasic PD) than individuals with average FI (at
least in difficult tasks). These findings would support the effort
hypothesis (or resource hypothesis), but not the efficiency hypoth-
esis. Differences in NI are also related to differences in the amount
of cognitive resources allocated to the tasks. However, we expected
a reverse direction of this relationship compared to FI, namely,
the allocation of less cognitive resources by individuals with
higher NI, supporting the efficiency hypothesis (cf. Ahern &
Beatty, 1979; Grabner et al., 2007). This should be reflected in a
smaller phasic PD for individuals with higher NI than individuals
with lower NI.
Method
Participants
Originally, 91 Grade 11 students of three Berlin schools that spe-
cialized in mathematics and natural sciences participated. Alto-
gether, 66 participants were included in the analysis (13 female;
age: M = 15.1 years, SD = 0.5). Reasons for exclusion are
described below. All of them had normal or corrected-to-normal
vision, no history of neurological or psychiatric diseases, and were
not taking any medication. The students and their parents gave
informed written consent prior to the investigation. Students were
paid for their participation.
Psychometric Tests
The screening test was accomplished 1 year prior to the experiment
and included the following psychometric tests: FI was measured by
the RAPM (Raven, 1958; Heller, Kratzmeier, & Lengfelder, 1998).
The numerical subtests of the four operations facets (processing
capacity, memory, fluency, and processing speed) of the BIS (Jäger
et al., 1997) were applied in order to assess NI.
Considering the association between FI and NI mentioned
above (see Beauducel et al., 2001; Beauducel & Kersting, 2002),
we expected a positive correlation between the ascertained scores
of FI and NI. Pearson’s bivariate correlation revealed a moderate
relationship between the RAPM IQ and the numerical BIS score
(r = .32, p ≤ .01, one-tailed).
To investigate the impact of FI and NI on mathematical perfor-
mance and resource allocation in detail, we divided our sample into
two groups of students differing in their RAPM scores and two
groups of students differing in their BIS scores. First, participants
were divided into two groups based on their RAPM scores (whole
sample: M = 118.4, SD = 16.5): 32 participants scored in the range
of 85–115 IQ points and were assigned to the average FI group
(average-RAPM; M = 103.8, SD = 7.6), whereas 34 participants
scored above 115 IQ points and were assigned to the high FI group
(high-RAPM; M = 132.2, SD = 8.9). The two groups differed sig-
nificantly in their RAPM IQ, t(64) = −13.92, p ≤ .001, one-tailed,
r = .87, as well as in their numerical BIS scores, t(64) = −1.72,
p ≤ .05, one-tailed, r = .21.
To consider the correlation between FI and NI (r = .32), our
second classification of participants was realized by dividing each
RAPM group into two groups according to their numerical BIS
scores (whole sample: M = 101.7, SD = 5.7): 18 participants with
high FI scored below the BISnumerical group mean of M = 102.8 and
were assigned to the group of individuals with lower NI (average-
BISnumerical of high-RAPM: M = 98.6, SD = 3.1), whereas 16 par-
ticipants scored above the BISnumerical group mean of M = 102.8 and
A. Dix and E. van der Meer3
were assigned to the group with higher NI (high-BISnumerical of
high-RAPM: M = 107.6, SD = 3.1). For those with average FI, 16
participants scored below the BISnumerical group mean of M = 100.4
and were assigned to the group of individuals with lower NI
(average-BISnumerical of average-RAPM: M = 95.9, SD = 2.9),
whereas 16 participants scored above the BISnumerical group mean of
M = 100.4 and were assigned to the group with higher NI (high-
BISnumerical of average-RAPM: M = 104.9, SD = 3.9). The resulting
two groups for the whole sample, namely, high and average FI with
lower NI (average-BISnumerical: M = 97.3, SD = 3.2) and high and
average FI with higher NI (high-BISnumerical: M = 106.3, SD = 3.7)
differed significantly in their numerical BIS scores, t(64) = −10.41,
p ≤ .001, one-tailed, r = .79.
After this procedure, the classification of participants according
to RAPM IQ and to the numerical BIS score did not correlate any
longer (coefficient of contingency φ = −.03, p = .41, one-tailed)
excluding confounding factors of the overlap between FI and NI for
further analyses.
Experimental Paradigm
The test consisted of a control condition—number/symbol identity
task—and an experimental condition (see Figure 1).
In the control condition, participants received an instruction
about the number/symbol identity task. They had to compare two
one-digit or two-digit numbers, or two algebraic terms (each
consisting of one variable) and evaluate their identity. We imple-
mented the task to control for visual and motor activity. After
performing four practice trials, participants had to complete the
28 trials of this condition (14 numbers and 14 algebraic terms;
50% identical, i.e., target items and 50% different, i.e., distractor
items).
In the experimental condition, participants were instructed to
mentally solve mathematical problems belonging to one of six
problem types as quickly and accurately as possible (probe).
Afterwards, they had to evaluate the correctness of a given can-
didate answer (see Figure 2). Task material was designed so that,
first, problem types differed in their difficulty and, second, the
most difficult problem type f was composed of task features of the
easier problem types c and e. Accordingly, we assumed the per-
formance on problem type f to be predictable by the performance
on its constituent parts c and e. Each problem type was explained
separately prior to the experimental phase and consisted of 28
items, 14 targets (correct candidate answers) and 14 distractors
(incorrect candidate answers). The problem types were practiced
in four practice trials directly after instruction and repeated until a
hit ratio of 75% was reached. Afterwards, the overall 168 items of
the experimental condition were presented in pseudorandomized
order (self-paced pauses after 28 trials). Stimuli were presented
in black color with a mean luminance of 36.5 cd/m2 (36.2–
36.8 cd/m2 for the six different problem types) on a light gray
background with a mean luminance of 39.5 cd/m2. The whole test
took about 1 hr to complete. Response times (RTs) and PD for
probes reflecting the computation time and the amount of cogni-
tive resources allocated to the task, as well as RTs and error rates
for targets (see Figure 2), were recorded as dependent variables.
Because of the variety of reasons that can lead to incorrect com-
putational results, we focused only on the correctly solved tasks
for the analyses of RTs and PD. In addition, it is not necessary to
generate the correct solution of the task in order to identify a
distractor as incorrect. Thus, calculation errors cannot always be
detected. Altogether, this led us to only analyze the data for cor-
Arithmetic
4 and algebraic problem solving 547
A. Dix and E. van der Meer

Control condition: number/symbol identity task

target target

distractor distractor

Experimental condition

target target

a. d.
distractor distractor

target target

b. e.
distractor distractor

target target

c. f.
distractor distractor

Figure 1. Examples of arithmetic and algebraic expressions (left) and correct (target) and incorrect (distractor) candidate answers (right).
Control condition: one- or two-digit numbers (left), algebraic terms (right). Experimental condition: arithmetic problem types with increasing task difficulty:
a. multiplication of two one-digit numbers, b. canceling down of two one- or two-digit numbers, c. operations with fractions (a and b combined); algebraic
problem types with increasing task difficulty: d. simplifying basic algebraic expressions, e. simplifying advanced algebraic expressions; combined arithmetic
and algebraic problem type: f. simplifying complex algebraic expressions (c and e combined).

rectly solved target items (items with correct candidate answers,
which were recognized as such).
Data Acquisition
Participants were tested separately in a quiet, moderately
illuminated room (background luminance 500 lx). To control for
pupil-influencing factors (e.g., drug consumption, medication, psy-
chiatric and neurological dysfunction; cf. Loewenfeld, 1993), par-
ticipants completed a corresponding pen-and-paper questionnaire
(simultaneous background luminance adaptation). Then, they were
seated in front of a computer screen (size of the display: 19″,
display resolution: 1,024 × 768) at a distance of 60 cm. The testing
was conducted on a computer using the software Presentation 9.01
(Neurobehavioral Systems Inc., Albany, CA) running on a
Microsoft Windows XP operating system. This computer, which
recorded the behavioral data, was connected to a second computer
using an iViewX Hi-Speed system (SensoMotoric Instruments
GmbH, Teltow, Germany) that recorded a measurement of the pupil
diameter of the right eye with a sampling frequency of 240 Hz. The
pupillometer (infrared light source with λ = 700–1,049 nm and
video camera sensitive to infrared light) was attached to a stand
with a chin rest and forehead support to stabilize the participant’s
head. All instructions and tests were presented on a screen. For
each participant, a calibration was performed to obtain a transfor-
mation from the measured pupil size in pixels into pupil size in
millimeters: a black dot of a fixed diameter of 5 mm was placed on
the closed right eyelid. Its pixel size was registered and then used
to determine an exchange ratio for converting pixels to pupil diam-
eter in millimeters.
Data Analyses
Data analysis for behavioral data (RTs, error rates) was computed
with the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences 15 (SPSS Inc.,
Chicago, IL). First, an outlier analysis was conducted: correct trials
for which RTs for probe and/or target1 were two SDs above or
below the sample mean of the regarded item as well as items on
which RTs for probe and/or target were two SDs above or below the
sample mean of the regarded problem type were removed. Thereby,
11.64% of the trials were eliminated. The occurrence of outliers
was independent of the problem type. Afterwards, the responses
were averaged for each condition and participant. MATLAB 7.1
(The MathWorks, Inc., Natick, MA) and SPSS 15 were used for
1. We wanted to ensure that participants did not calculate once again by
inspecting the RTs for targets. Hence, trials with long RTs for target were
discarded.
548
Arithmetic and algebraic problem solving A. Dix and E. van der Meer5

Fixation (1,000 ms)

Probe (self-paced)

Candidate answer
(self-paced)

Mask (2,500 ms)

Blank (500 ms)

1st Response 2nd Response

t

Figure 2. Trial scheme: A centered fixation cross (the last 200 ms were used to measure the pretrial pupil baseline diameter) was followed by the
mathematical problem (experimental condition; probe) or the number/variable (control condition; probe). The candidate answer (target/distractor) was
requested by pressing a button. Responses about the correctness of the candidate answer were given by pressing the left (right index finger) or right (right
ring finger) arrow key (assignment of keys—correct vs. incorrect—was counterbalanced). To keep the luminance of the stimuli constant over the whole trial,
the remainder of the mathematical equation was blurred during the presentation of the probe and later the candidate answer. After the second response, a
blurred mask of the whole item appeared followed by a blank screen (relaxation phase).

pupillary data. Before the statistical data analysis, pupillary
data were cleaned following standard procedures (Beatty &
Lucero-Wagoner, 2000; Granholm, Asarnow, Sarkin, & Dykes,
1996): trials with excessive blinking were discarded. There was no
systematic distribution of pupillary artifacts across the problem
types of the experimental condition. Small blinks were replaced by
cubical interpolation. An average of 79% of all trials remained after
discarding errors, outliers, and artifacts. The pupillary responses
were baseline corrected for each trial subtracting the average pupil
diameter of a 200-ms period before stimulus onset (pretrial base-
line correction). We computed a response-locked (first button press
after presentation of the probe)2 pupillary response, smoothed by
an unweighted 5-point moving average filter, for each problem type
and participant. To extract a reliable measurement of pupillary
response and to reduce noise in data for the statistical analyses, we
only allowed an average of at least seven trials per problem type
and participant. As a result, we retained 66 participants with an
available pupillary response for all problem types. The groups
classified according to the intelligence scores did not differ in the
number of losses. The peak PD of the computational process (i.e.,
probe), defined as the maximal dilation until 1,000 ms after the first
button press, was determined for each condition and participant.
Assumptions for the statistical data analyses were tested. Error
rates were not normally distributed (Kolmogorov-Smirnov test).
Thus, nonparametric procedures were performed. For repeated
measures analyses of variance (ANOVAs), degrees of freedom
were Greenhouse-Geisser corrected, if the assumption of sphericity
was violated. We computed factorial and repeated measures
ANOVAs for RTs (only probe) and peak PD, and Kruskal-Wallis
test and Friedman test for error rates. We applied a hierarchical
linear regression approach to predict RTs (only probe) of problem
type f: first, including RTs of the constituent problem types c and e;
second, the peak PD of these problem types; and, third, FI and NI
to capture their additional impact independent of that already
covered by RTs and PD. Significant main effects of our analyses
were further analyzed by separate t tests or Wilcoxon signed-rank
tests. For all analyses, a rejection criterion of p ≤ .05 was chosen
(Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons).
Results
Behavioral Data
Number/symbol identity task (control condition). Descriptive
statistics for this task are displayed in Table 1a, including means
and standard deviations of RTs and error rates dependent on FI and
NI. One participant reversed the assignment of keys in the number/
symbol identity task and was therefore excluded from this com-
parison. A 2 (GroupRAPM: high vs. average FI) × 2 (GroupBIS-numerical:
higher vs. lower NI) ANOVA on RTs as dependent variable was
performed. It revealed a statistically significant main effect of
groupRAPM, F(1,61) = 4.89, p ≤ .05, η2 = .07. Participants with high
FI performed significantly faster than participants with average FI.
The main effect of groupBIS-numerical, F(1,61) = 1.02, p = .32,
η2 = .02, and the interaction GroupRAPM × GroupBIS-numerical,
F(1,61) = 1.03, p = .31, η2 = .02, did not reach significance. The
error rate did not differ with respect to FI (Mann-Whitney
U = 484.00, p = .46, two-tailed) and NI (Mann-Whitney
U = 601.50, p = .20, two-tailed).

Experimental condition. Descriptive statistics are displayed in

2. Stimulus-locked results were analyzed as well. Results are consis- Table 1b, including means and standard deviations of RTs and error
tent with the response-locked results reported below. rates for all six problem types dependent on FI and NI.
Arithmetic
6 and algebraic problem solving 549
A. Dix and E. van der Meer

Table 1a. Number/Symbol Identity Task (Control Condition)

High-RAPMa Average-RAPMa
High-BISnumericalb Average-BISnumericalb High-BISnumericalb Average-BISnumericalb
RTs
M (ms) 796.68 796.45 842.18 919.11
SD (ms) 132.39 154.45 150.00 171.93
Error rates
M (%) 1.34 3.57 1.42 1.79
SD (%) 2.88 5.05 2.96 3.19
Peak PD
M (mm) 0.37 0.42 0.36 0.25
SD (mm) 0.17 0.19 0.15 0.16
a
Comparison of individuals with high FI (high-RAPM) and individuals with average FI (average-RAPM).
b
Comparison of individuals with higher NI (high-BISnumerical) and individuals with lower NI (average-BISnumerical).

RTs. A 2 (GroupRAPM: high vs. average FI) × 2 (GroupBIS-numerical:
higher vs. lower NI) × 6 (Task Difficulty: six problem types)
repeated measures ANOVA on RTs as dependent variable was
performed. It revealed statistically significant main effects of task
difficulty, F(1.40,86.83) = 906.80, p ≤ .001, η2 = .94; groupRAPM,
F(1,62) = 9.73, p ≤ .01, one-tailed, η2 = .14; and groupBIS-numerical,
F(1,62) = 12.66, p ≤ .01, one-tailed, η2 = .17; as well as a significant
interaction of GroupRAPM × Difficulty, F(1.40,86.83) = 8.94, p ≤ .01,
η2 = .13; and GroupBIS-numerical × Difficulty, F(1.40,86.83) = 5.39,
p ≤ .05, η2 = .08. There was no significant interaction of
GroupRAPM × GroupBIS-numerical, F(1,62) = 2.27, p = .14, η2 = .04.
Also, the interaction of GroupRAPM × GroupBIS-numerical × Task
Difficulty just failed to reach significance, F(1.40,86.83) = 2.91,
p = .08, η2 = .05. RTs increased for more difficult tasks and
individuals with high FI performed faster than individuals with
average FI except in tasks of problem type a (multiplication; see
also Figure 3). Individuals with higher NI were faster than individ-
uals with lower NI. The difference for problem type e was statisti-
cally larger than the differences for problem types a (z = 1.60,
p ≤ .05), d (z = 2.20, p ≤ .05), and f (z = 1.78, p ≤ .05). As a trend,
high FI speeds up RTs only for participants with lower NI. In
contrast, higher NI speeds up RTs for participants with average FI in
all problem types and for participants with high FI in problem types
b, c, and e.

Table 1b. Experimental Condition

High-RAPMb
High-BISnumericalc (N = 16) Average-BISnumericalc (N = 18)
a
Problem type a b c d e f a b c d e f
RTs (probe)
M (ms) 1,637 1,476 4,735 2,086 4,685 13,311 1,707 1,822 5,714 2,318 5,851 13,939
SD (ms) 568 281 965 490 986 2,850 410 428 1,902 720 1,600 3,174
Error rates
M (%) 1.786 1.786 10.268 1.339 4.018 16.517 5.159 2.778 15.873 2.778 3.571 18.254
SD (%) 3.194 3.194 5.813 2.879 4.494 8.539 6.845 4.984 9.969 4.341 5.614 10.741
Peak PD
M (mm) 0.318 0.389 0.419 0.355 0.434 0.530 0.343 0.351 0.517 0.369 0.468 0.568
SD (mm) 0.172 0.173 0.183 0.157 0.185 0.210 0.175 0.171 0.208 0.166 0.211 0.227

Average-RAPMb
High-BISnumerical (N = 16)
c
Average-BISnumericalc (N = 16)
Problem typea a b c d e f a b c d e f
RTs (probe)
M (ms) 1,633 1,632 5,290 2,352 5,125 14,588 2,131 2,091 6,857 2,754 6,872 18,363
SD (ms) 563 463 962 489 1,044 2,808 642 507 1,810 723 1,493 4,772
Error rates
M (%) 1.905 1.429 14.286 7.142 13.810 20.000 2.232 2.232 15.625 5.357 12.500 24.107
SD (%) 4.240 2.957 8.099 11.454 16.744 11.197 3.419 3.419 11.434 6.650 12.372 11.331
Peak PD
M (mm) 0.289 0.295 0.378 0.316 0.393 0.491 0.264 0.246 0.345 0.252 0.322 0.440
SD (mm) 0.125 0.099 0.160 0.138 0.210 0.177 0.141 0.147 0.150 0.162 0.133 0.138
a
Problem type: a = multiplication of two one-digit numbers; b = canceling down of two one- or two-digit numbers; c = operations with fractions;
d = simplifying basic algebraic expressions; e = simplifying advanced algebraic expressions; f = simplifying complex algebraic expressions.
b
Comparison of individuals with high FI (high-RAPM) and individuals with average FI (average-RAPM).
c
Comparison of individuals with higher NI (high-BISnumerical) and individuals with lower NI (average-BISnumerical).
550
Arithmetic and algebraic problem solving
Figure 3. Experimental condition: RTs dependent on FI and NI for all six
problem types (a. multiplication of two one-digit numbers, b. canceling
down of two one- or two-digit numbers, c. operations with fractions,
d. simplifying basic algebraic expressions, e. simplifying advanced
algebraic expressions, f. simplifying complex algebraic expressions). Light
gray rectangles on bars of different problem types mark the same task
difficulty of these problem types; all other comparisons revealed
statistically significant differences in RTs (Bonferroni corrected).
Error rates. A Friedman test on error rates revealed a statisti-
cally significant main effect of task difficulty, χ2(5) = 191.25,
p ≤ .001, two-tailed. Paired comparisons by sign test identified
problem types a, b, and d to be solved most accurately, followed by
problem types c and e. Most of the mistakes were made in tasks of
problem type f. A Mann-Whitney U test showed a significant dif-
ference concerning the error rates depending on FI (U = 378.50,
p ≤ .05, one-tailed) and NI (U = 404.00, p ≤ .05, one-tailed) with
fewer errors for individuals with high FI (M = 5.95%, SD = 3.07)
and higher NI (M = 6.63%, SD = 4.73) than individuals with
average FI (M = 8.85%, SD = 5.67) and lower NI (M = 8.04%,
SD = 4.67).
Pupillary Data
Number/symbol identity task (control condition). Descriptive
statistics for this task are displayed in Table 1a including means
and standard deviations of peak PD dependent on FI and NI. A 2
(GroupRAPM: high vs. average FI) × 2 (GroupBIS-numerical: higher vs.
lower NI) ANOVA on peak PD as dependent variable was per-
formed. It revealed a statistically significant main effect of
groupRAPM, F(1,60) = 3.89, p = .05, η2 = .06. The main effect
of groupBIS-numerical, F(1,60) < 1) and—if only just—the interaction
of GroupRAPM × GroupBIS-numerical, F(1,60) = 3.14, p = .08, η2 = .05,
did not reach significance. Individuals with high FI exhibited sig-
nificantly greater peak PD than individuals with average FI.
However, the marginally significant interaction effect might indi-
cate that this greater peak PD is only observable among those
individuals with high FI that are at the same time characterized by
a lower NI (see Table 1a).
Experimental condition. Descriptive statistics for the experimen-
tal condition are displayed in Table 1b including means and standard
deviations of peak PD for all six problem types dependent on FI and
NI.A2 (GroupRAPM: high vs. average FI) × 2 (GroupBIS-numerical: higher
vs. lower NI) × 6 (Task Difficulty: six problem types) repeated
measures ANOVA on peak PD as dependent variable yielded
statistically significant main effects of task difficulty,
A. Dix and E. van der Meer7
F(3.85,238.46) = 45.27, p ≤ .001, η2 = .42, and groupRAPM,
F(1,62) = 5.69, p ≤ .05, η2 = .08. Peak PD increased for more
difficult tasks (Figure 4), and individuals with high FI exhibited
a larger peak PD than individuals with average FI. The main effect
of groupBIS-numerical, F(1,62) < 1, as well as the interactions
of Task Difficulty × GroupRAPM, F(3.85,238.46) < 1, Task
Difficulty × GroupBIS-numerical, F(3.85,238.46) = 1.23, p = .30,
GroupRAPM × GroupBIS-numerical, F(1,62) = 1.13, p = .29, and
GroupRAPM × GroupBIS-numerical × Task Difficulty, F(3.85,238.46) < 1,
were not statistically significant.
Linear Regression Analysis
Table 2 contains the model fit and the included predictor variables
for different models for RTs on tasks of problem type f. The
regression model for the whole sample included the RTs on opera-
tions with fractions (problem type c) and simplifying advanced
algebraic expressions (problem type e) as predictor variables and,
additionally, the peak PD exhibited during these two problem
types. Thereby, 68% of the performance variance could be
explained. For individuals with average FI, only the speed (RTs) in
simplifying advanced algebraic expressions (problem type e)
showed a predictive value for the performance in the mixed arith-
metic and algebraic problem type f. On the contrary, the regression
model of individuals with high FI contained the RTs as well as
the PD in both math problems. A reverse difference concerning
the predictor variables was observed for the comparison
of the regression models dependent on NI: RTs on problem types
c and e, as well as PD for problem type e and FI, showed a
predictive value for the performance in problem type f for individ-
uals with lower NI, whereas the regression model of individuals
with higher NI contained only the RTs of both problem types c
and e.
Discussion
The aim of the current study was to analyze the relationship
between task difficulty, fluid (FI) and numerical intelligence (NI),
resource allocation, and mathematical performance across two
mathematical domains. Participants were presented with arithmetic
and algebraic problems differing in task composition and difficulty.
We assessed RTs and error rates as well as phasic pupil dilation
(PD; Aston-Jones & Cohen, 2005).
The main results of our study can be summarized as follows:
First, the arithmetic and algebraic problems were solved faster and
more accurately by individuals with high compared to average FI
while individuals with high FI showed greater PD. Second, indi-
viduals with higher NI outperformed individuals with lower
NI behaviorally, but PD did not differ between these two groups.
Third, RTs in the more difficult tasks were (only) partly predictable
by the performance in the easier tasks, of which they were
composed. PD was an additional predictor of performance in
the more difficult tasks only for individuals with high FI and
lower NI.
Impact of Intelligence (FI vs. NI) on Mathematical
Performance
We discovered that individuals with high FI and higher NI solved
the arithmetic and algebraic problems more accurately than indi-
viduals with average FI and lower NI. This meets our first hypoth-
esis and is in accordance with previous findings showing that errors
Arithmetic
8 and algebraic problem solving
0,6
high-RAPM: High difficulty
average-RAPM: High difficulty
high-RAPM: Medium difficulty
0,5
average-RAPM: Medium difficulty
high-RAPM: Low difficulty
average-RAPM: Low difficulty
0,4
Pupil Dilaon (mm)
0,3
0,2
0,1
0
-6 -5 -4
Figure 4. Experimental condition: pupillary responses (response-locked) dependent on FI (high-RAPM: individuals with high FI, average-RAPM:
individuals with average FI) and difficulty (low difficulty comprises tasks from problem types a. multiplication of two one-digit numbers, b. canceling down
of two one- or two-digit numbers, and d. simplifying basic algebraic expressions; medium difficulty comprises tasks from problem types c. operations with
fractions, and e. simplifying advanced algebraic expressions; high difficulty comprises tasks from problem type f. simplifying complex algebraic
expressions); peak PD between problem types did not differ within each level in this graduation of difficulty, but between these levels (Bonferroni corrected).
might arise from a lack of relevant knowledge, for instance, of
logical schemes, or even out of a malfunction of control mecha-
nisms (Moutier & Houdé, 2003). Low factual and procedural
knowledge in mathematics is associated with low NI, whereas FI is
particularly related to executive control processes such as the inhi-
bition of prepotent responses (Friedman et al., 2008), for instance,
due to the intrusion of earlier, less effective strategies, which have
been shown to influence performance on algebraic word problems
(Khng & Lee, 2009) and mathematical achievement in adolescents
(Latzman, Elkovitch, Young, & Clark, 2010).
Concerning RTs, individuals with high FI were, besides the
lower error rate, also faster than individuals with average FI in
processing the tasks except in the easiest problem type a, involv-
ing only fact retrieval. Individuals with higher NI outperformed
individuals with lower NI in every task type. If individuals with
high FI cope better with the task format in general than individ-
uals with average FI, we would have expected an advantage in all
problem types, even in problem type a. Hence, the FI-related
advantage must be specific to another characteristic of the par-
ticular tasks. That individuals with high FI, but not higher NI,
were already faster in the control condition replicates previous
results (Neubauer, 1997; van der Meer et al., 2010) and supports
the idea that FI, but not NI (Longstreth, Walsh, Alcorn,
Szeszulski, & Manis, 1986; Nettlebeck, Edwards, & Vreugdenhil,
1986), allows individuals to deal faster particularly with new
tasks. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that individuals with
551
A. Dix and E. van der Meer
high-BIS: High difficulty
average-BIS: High difficulty
high-BIS: Medium difficulty
average-BIS: Medium difficulty
high-BIS: Low difficulty
average-BIS: Low difficulty
-3 -2 -1 0 1
Time (seconds) First Buon Press
distinct levels of FI do not differ in basic learned mathematical
fact retrieval as in multiplication up to 100. Higher NI, by con-
trast, is indeed associated with increased arithmetic fluency—a
higher familiarity with corresponding declarative knowledge—
leading to shorter RTs even in the easiest problem type a. Alto-
gether, our first hypothesis about a better performance in
individuals with high compared to average FI and NI has been
mostly confirmed. Moreover, different impacts of FI and NI on
performance could be characterized: FI compared to NI allows for
faster responses especially in a new task.
Regarding the relationship between these impacts, it seems
that higher NI speeds up RTs for participants with average and
high FI, whereas high FI speeds up RTs only for participants with
lower, but not with higher, NI. This appears quite reasonable,
when thinking of FI as a compensational ability for a lack of
relevant declarative and procedural knowledge by providing alter-
native procedures for problem solving (cf. Blair, 2006). How this
might be reflected in resource allocation and in the performance
on tasks with different task demands will be discussed in the
following sections.
Task Demands
The second aim of our study was to predict the performance on
more difficult tasks by the performance on their constituent parts,
and in this context to additionally determine the impact of FI and
552
Arithmetic and algebraic problem solving A. Dix and E. van der Meer9

Table 2. Linear Regression Models for Problem Type f assumed to indicate further task demands beyond those that are
(Simplifying Complex Algebraic Expressions) already present in the constituent conditions. The need to gain a
broader overview, to plan more processing steps, to maintain a
Problem type fa number of interim results in memory, as well as the monitoring of
Predictor variables b
B SE of B βc r2 the complex calculating process and its results are possible candi-
dates. Further research is needed to shed light on these additional
Linear regression model for the whole sample (R2d = .68) processes. About 5 percent of the performance variance was
Step 1 (ΔR2 = .63, p ≤ .001)
Constant 3,154.53 1,190.68 explained by differences in peak PD and might reflect coping with
RTs problem type ca 0.64 0.28 .27* .03 these additional processes. We hypothesized that the performance
RTs problem type ea 1.46 0.30 .57*** .14 in the easier tasks and FI, but not NI, have an impact on
Step 2 (ΔR = .05, p ≤ .05)
2
the performance in the difficult tasks. As peak PD is related to
Constant 3,640.87 1,517.55
RTs problem type c 0.73 0.27 .31* .04
FI, but not NI—as we describe below—our expectation is fully
RTs problem type e 1.39 0.30 .54*** .11 confirmed.
e
PPD problem type c −7,194.82 2,365.43 −.34** .05
PPD problem type e 5,917.93 2,310.19 .29* .03
Intelligence and Allocation of Cognitive Resources
Linear regression model for individuals with average FI (R2 = .61)
Step 1 (ΔR2 = .61, p ≤ .001) Our third aim was to examine the role of resource allocation indi-
Constant 3,473.29 1,968.95 cated by PD dependent on FI and NI in mathematical cognition.
RTs problem type e 2.17 0.32 .78*** .61
Three contrasting hypotheses on the relationship between task
Linear regression model for individuals with high FI (R = .71)
2
difficulty and allocation of cognitive resources dependent on
Step 1 (ΔR2 = .63, p ≤ .001)
Constant 4,912.64 1,265.35 intelligence were described in the introduction: the efficiency,
RTs problem type c 0.76 0.34 .40* .06 effort, and resource hypothesis. In the experimental condition,
RTs problem type e 0.89 0.37 .43* .07 peak PD as an indicator of processing load (Beatty &
Step 2 (ΔR2 = .08, p ≤ .05) Lucero-Wagoner, 2000) was sensitive to task difficulty. Peak PD
Constant 4,592.42 1,443.19
RTs problem type c 0.81 0.31 .43* .07
increased with increasing task difficulty. Furthermore, as hypoth-
RTs problem type e 0.97 0.34 .47* .08 esized, individuals with high FI outperformed individuals with
PPD problem type c −7,239.36 2,613.77 −.48** .08 average FI while allocating more cognitive resources (higher PD)
PPD problem type e 6,848.19 2,677.90 .45* .07 to all tasks independent of task difficulty and composition. These
Linear regression model for individuals with lower NI (R2 = .77) findings support the effort hypothesis. Steinhauer et al. (2004)
Step 1 (ΔR2 = .61, p ≤ .001) found that parasympathetic inhibition, which results in the dila-
Constant 1,980.71 2,065.23 tion of the pupil and is related to frontal cortical functioning, only
RTs problem type e 1.74 0.47 .62*** .17
Step 2 (ΔR2 = .10, p ≤ .05) occurs in cognitively demanding tasks. However, as discussed in
Constant 2,680.43 2,543.49 the introduction, higher PD also goes hand in hand with sympa-
RTs problem type c 0.88 0.38 .37* .05 thetic activity and locus coeruleus activation, leading to higher
RTs problem type e 1.35 0.46 .48** .09 cortical activation and a stronger task focus (Aston-Jones &
PPD problem type c −11,761.50 3,894.70 −.52** .09
PPD problem type e 11,038.62 4,031.78 .47** .08
Cohen, 2005). Moreover, sympathetically driven differences in
Step 3 (ΔR2 = .06, p ≤ .05) task engagement might be associated with the better performance
Constant 9,393.18 14,575.90 we found for individuals with high FI.
RTs problem type c 0.75 0.35 .32* .04 The result of a higher resource allocation in students with high
RTs problem type e 1.25 0.43 .45** .07 compared to average FI is contradictory to the findings of Ahern
PPD problem type e 8,982.80 3,840.10 .38* .05
f
RAPM score −82.20 31.87 −.30* .06 and Beatty (1979), who reported a more efficient processing of
multiplication tasks in more intelligent individuals. This might be
Linear regression model for individuals with higher NI (R2 = .64)
Step 1 (ΔR2 = .64, p ≤ .001) due to the fact that the authors compared the resource allocation
Constant 1,340.90 1,785.13 of individuals based on SAT scores. This standardized test for
RTs problem type c 1.16 0.40 .40** .11 college admission in the United States includes a verbal subtest
RTs problem type e 1.38 0.38 .50*** .16 related to crystallized intelligence and a mathematical subtest that
a
Problem type: c = operations with fractions; e = simplifying advanced do not only stress FI, but also emphasize several trained skills
algebraic expressions; f = simplifying complex algebraic expressions. mainly associated with NI, such as knowledge about prime
b
B = unstandardized beta coefficient; SE = standard error; β = standardized numbers or the binomial theorem, to a large extent. As expected
beta coefficient; r2 = semipartial correlation coefficient. and in line with this, our study did not find high NI to be related
c
Significance of t value marked: *< .05; **< .01; ***< .001.
to a higher phasic PD. Actually, the absolute values of the peak
d
ΔR2 = improvement in the amount of variance in RTs explained by the
model. PD are—in line with Ahern and Beatty (1979), albeit not signifi-
e
PPD = peak PD. cantly—lower for individuals with higher NI compared to indi-
f
RAPM score = FI. viduals with lower NI. Altogether, our hypothesis concerning the
allocation of cognitive resources dependent on FI (effort or
resource hypothesis) and NI (efficiency hypothesis) has generally
been confirmed. Our results extend findings of van der Meer et al.
NI. The regression model of RTs for the most difficult problem (2010) to tasks with different levels of difficulty and of other
type f explained 68% of the performance variance. Differences in mathematical subdomains, namely, arithmetic and algebra.
the performance on tasks of problem types c and e—the constituent Furthermore, they point to the relevance to consider different
parts of problem type f—already predicted 63% of the performance intelligence facets and their specific relationship to neural effi-
differences in problem type f. The unexplained remainder is ciency when investigating higher cognition. The dissociation in
Arithmetic
10 and algebraic problem solving
resource allocation dependent on FI versus NI for mathematical
cognition suggests that the allocation of more resources by indi-
viduals with high FI is in fact one source underlying individual
differences in mathematical abilities, as we will discuss in more
detail below.
FI: A Compensational Mechanism?
Looking at our results in more detail, we suppose FI to be a
compensational mechanism for a lack of relevant declarative and
procedural knowledge as already shown by the interaction effect of
FI and NI on RTs. This consideration is further supported by
several additional findings of this study.
First, PD was only included as a predictor for RTs in the regres-
sion model for participants with high, but not for participants with
average FI. Conversely, PD only predicted RTs of individuals with
lower, but not higher NI. This finding can be linked to the shorter
RTs of individuals with high compared to average FI, which was
revealed as a trend only for lower NI. It suggests that only individ-
uals with lower NI employ procedures associated with greater PD
and FI, leading to better performance, whereas individuals with
higher NI are able to employ task-relevant declarative and pro-
cedural knowledge.
Second, individuals with high FI generally allocated more
cognitive resources than individuals with average FI. This was
even shown for the number/symbol identity task, but only for
individuals with lower NI. This finding raises the question of
which processes are reflected in the PD in response to our tasks.
Possible candidates are math-supportive operations associated
with frontal activity and math-specific operations associated with
parietal activity (Dehaene, Piazza, Pinel, & Cohen, 2003).
Steinhauer et al. (2004) reported parasympathetic inhibition that
is related to PD only in demanding tasks requiring frontal cortical
functioning. Since we found differences in resource allocation for
all tasks, the PD in response to our tasks does not seem to be
linked mainly to this parasympathetic inhibition and frontal func-
tioning, but rather to the sympathetic pathway. We cannot pre-
clude a contribution of frontal activity to this pathway. However,
Landgraf et al. (2010) found the pupil not to be sensitive to
frontal activity, but to activity in the intraparietal sulcus (IPS).
The IPS is proposed as a language-independent representational
system of numerical quantity (Dehaene et al., 2003). We can
speculate that IPS activity is reflected in PD and hence that FI
is supportive for corresponding processes (e.g., complex direct
calculation). By contrast, NI might support linguistically
mediated operations (e.g., fact retrieval) associated with activity
of the angular gyrus (AG). This explanation is based on positive
correlations found between FI and IPS activity in a geometric
analogy task (Preusse et al., 2011) and between NI and AG activ-
ity even in tasks solely requiring the mapping between symbols
and numerical magnitude (Grabner et al., 2007). In our study,
a greater PD in individuals with high FI might reflect a more
extensive activation of the IPS already present in the number/
symbol identity task. It could have facilitated the representation
of numerical quantity, but only in individuals with lower NI.
Individuals with higher NI rely on AG activity more strongly
(Grabner et al., 2007), which might not be reflected in
PD.
Altogether, we assume that FI acts as a compensational mecha-
nism that becomes especially relevant when task demands exceed
available knowledge or abilities (e.g., in low NI individuals). In this
context, more research is needed.
553
A. Dix and E. van der Meer
Conclusion
This study provided new insights into arithmetic and algebraic
cognition and its relationship to FI and NI as sources of individ-
ual differences. We were able to demonstrate a central role of FI
for the allocation of cognitive resources in mathematical cogni-
tion. Moreover, in our study, high FI allows for a better perfor-
mance in arithmetic and algebraic tasks by allocating more
cognitive resources. This could be observed for all levels of task
difficulty. Our results are consistent with the findings of van der
Meer et al. (2010) on a geometric analogy task in the way that
individuals with high compared to average FI allocate more cog-
nitive resources. Though the amount of resources also depends on
the task type and its difficulty, a higher resource allocation first of
all contradicts the efficiency hypothesis. Interestingly, NI is also
positively related to mathematical performance in our study and
even gives additional advantage for individuals with high FI;
however, it does not affect the amount of cognitive resources allo-
cated to task processing. This strongly argues in favor of seri-
ously considering the specific facet of intelligence (e.g., FI vs.
NI) when interpreting related differences in neural efficiency.
Further, we were able to predict the computation time in the most
difficult task condition by using the performance on the easier
tasks to a remarkable degree.
Therefore, the following conclusions can be drawn: In the
field of mathematical cognition, high NI—meaning a high avail-
ability of knowledge of relevant schemes and procedures for
solving mathematical problems—allows for superior perfor-
mance, as one would have expected. In contrast, FI seems to
become relevant more likely when required knowledge is missing
due to high task demands or a lack of abilities (e.g., low NI). The
greater resource allocation in individuals with high FI indicated
by greater PD might reflect a stronger activation of the IPS and
subsequently an increased reliance on language-independent
numerical operations. Due to the difficulty of our tasks,3 individ-
uals with high FI seem to apply these operations to all tasks
leading to a generally greater PD and better performance com-
pared to individuals with average FI.
Altogether, our study made the crucial point that the investiga-
tion of mathematical cognition can be enriched by combining dif-
ferent methods (psychometric tests, traditional behavioral
measures like RTs and error rates, and psychophysiological param-
eters like phasic pupillary response), facets of intelligence (FI vs.
NI), and levels of analysis (task performance vs. resource alloca-
tion). This allows for supporting or rejecting results on different
levels of scientific analysis. Also and most importantly, this com-
bination is a powerful approach to shed light on dependencies and
interactions of factors that impact mathematical cognition. Future
studies should consider individual strategies for solving math-
ematical problems (e.g., using eye movement analyses; cf.
Vigneau, Caissie, & Bors, 2006) and explicitly investigate the
impact of learning and automatization as one moderator variable
proven to influence the relationship between the amount of cogni-
tive resources invested and the behavioral performance (Neubauer
& Fink, 2009).
3. Even simple multiplication tasks are rather demanding in this age
class—due to a lack of training.
554
Arithmetic and algebraic problem solving
References
Ahern, S., & Beatty, J. (1979). Pupillary responses during information
processing vary with Scholastic Aptitude Test scores. Science, 205,
1289–1292. doi: 10.1126/science.472746
Aston-Jones, G., & Cohen, J. D. (2005). An integrative theory of locus
coeruleus-norepinephrine function: Adaptive gain and optimal perfor-
mance. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 28, 403–450. doi: 10.1146/
annurev.neuro.28.061604.135709
Aston-Jones, G., Ennis, M., Pieribone, V. A., Nickell, W. T, & Shipley,
M. T. (1986). The brain nucleus locus coeruleus: Restricted afferent
control of a broad efferent network. Science. 234, 734–737. doi:
10.1126/science.3775363
Beatty, J., & Lucero-Wagoner, B. (2000). The pupillary system. In J. T.
Cacioppo, L. G. Tassinary, & G. G. Berntson (Eds.), Handbook of
psychophysiology (2nd ed., pp. 142–162). New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Beauducel, A., Brocke, B., & Liepmann, D. (2001). Perspectives on fluid
and crystallized intelligence: Facets for verbal, numerical, and figural
intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 977–994. doi:
10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00087-8
Beauducel, A., & Kersting, M. (2002) Fluid and crystallized intelligence and
the Berlin model of intelligence structure (BIS). European Journal
of Psychological Assessment, 18, 97–112. doi: 10.1027//1015-
5759.18.2.97
Blair, C. (2006). How similar are fluid cognition and general intelligence?
A developmental neuroscience perspective on fluid cognition as an
aspect of human cognitive ability. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 29,
109–160. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X06009034
Bornemann, B., Foth, M., Horn, J., Ries, J., Warmuth, E., Wartenburger, I.,
& van der Meer, E. (2010). Mathematical cognition: Individual differ-
ences in resource allocation. ZDM Mathematics Education, 42, 555–
567. doi: 10.1007/s11858-010-0253-x
Brand, C. R. (1984). Intelligence and inspection time: An ontogenetic
relationship? In C. J. Turner & H. B. Miles (Eds.), The biology of human
intelligence (pp. 53–64). Humberside, UK: Nafferton Books.
Cattell, R. B. (1987). Intelligence: Its structure, growth, and action.
Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science Publishers BV.
Dehaene, S., Piazza, M., Pinel, P., & Cohen, L. (2003). Three parietal
circuits for number processing. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 20, 487–
506. doi: 10.1080/02643290244000239
Friedman, N. P., Miyake, A., Young, S. E., DeFries, J. C., Corley, R. P., &
Hewitt, J. K. (2008). Individual differences in executive functions are
almost entirely genetic in origin. Journal of Experimental Psychology,
137, 201–225. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.137.2.201
Gallagher, S. A. (1989). Predictors of SAT mathematics scores of gifted
male and gifted female adolescents. Psychology of Women Quarterly,
13, 191–203. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.1989.tb00996.x
Grabner, R. H., Ansari, D., Reishofer, G., Stern, E., Ebner, F., & Neuper, C.
(2007). Individual differences in mathematical competence predict pari-
etal brain activation during mental calculation. NeuroImage, 38, 346–
356. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.07.041
Granholm, E., Asarnow, R. F., Sarkin, A. J., & Dykes, K. L. (1996).
Pupillary responses index cognitive resource limitations.
Psychophysiology, 33, 457–461. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.1996
.tb01071.x
Heller, K. A., Kratzmeier, H., & Lengfelder, A (1998). Matrizen-Test-
Manual (Band 2): Ein Handbuch mit deutschen Normen zu
den Advanced Progressive Matrices von J. C. Raven [Matrices test
manual, Vol. 2. A manual with German norms for the standard progres-
sive matrices of J. C. Raven]. Weinheim, Germany: Beltz-Test
GmbH.
Jäger, A. O., Süß, H.-M., & Beauducel, A. (1997). Berliner
Intelligenzstruktur-Test, Form 4 [Berlin Test of Intelligence Structure,
Form 4]. Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
Just, M. A., Carpenter, P. A., & Miyake, A. (2003). Neuroindices of cog-
nitive workload: Neuroimaging, pupillometric and event-related poten-
tial studies of brain work. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 4,
56–88. doi: 10.1080/14639220210159735
A. Dix and E. van der Meer
11
Karatekin, C. (2004). Development of attentional allocation in the dual task
paradigm. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 52, 7–23. doi:
10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2003.12.002
Khng, K. H., & Lee, K. (2009). Inhibiting interference from prior knowl-
edge: Arithmetic intrusions in algebra word problem solving. Learning
and Individual Differences, 19, 262–268. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2009
.01.004
Landgraf, S., van der Meer, E., & Krüger, F. (2010). Cognitive resource
allocation for neural activity underlying mathematical cognition: A
multi-method study. ZDM, 42, 579–590. doi: 10.1007/s11858-010-
0264-7
Latzman, R. D., Elkovitch, N., Young, J., & Clark, L. A. (2010). The
contribution of executive functioning to academic achievement among
male adolescents. Journal of Clinical and Experimental
Neuropsychology, 32, 455–462. doi: 10.1080/13803390903164363
Loewenfeld, I. E. (1993). The pupil. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.
Longstreth, L. E., Walsh, D. A., Alcorn, M. D., Szeszulski, P. A., & Manis,
F. R. (1986). Backward masking, IQ, SAT, and reaction time: Interre-
lationships and theory. Personality and Individual Differences, 7, 643–
651. doi: 10.1016/0191-8869(86)90033-4
Lowenstein, O. (1955). Pupillary reflex shapes and topical clinical diagno-
sis. Neurology, 5, 631–644.
Menon, V. (2010). Developmental cognitive neuroscience of arithmetic:
Implications for learning and education. ZDM, 42, 515–525. doi:
10.1007/s11858-010-0242-0
Moutier, S., & Houdé, O. (2003). Judgement under uncertainty and con-
junction fallacy inhibition training. Thinking and Reasoning, 9, 185–
201. doi: 10.1080/13546780343000213
Nettlebeck, T., Edwards, C., & Vreugdenhil, A. (1986). Inspection time and
IQ: Evidence for a mental speed-ability association. Personality and
Individual Differences, 7, 633–641. doi: 10.1016/0191-8869(86)90032
-2
Neubauer, A. C. (1997). The mental speed approach to the assessment of
intelligence. In J. Kingma & W. Tomic (Eds.), Advances in cognition
and educational practice: Reflections on the concept of intelligence
(pp. 149–174). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Neubauer, A. C., & Fink, A. (2009). Intelligence and neural efficiency.
Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 33, 1004–1023. doi:
10.1016/j.neubiorev.2009.04.001
Preusse, F., van der Meer, E., Deshpande, G., Krüger, F., & Wartenburger,
I. (2011). Fluid intelligence allows flexible recruitment of the parieto-
frontal network in analogical reasoning. Frontiers in Human Neurosci-
ence, 5, 1–14. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2011.00022
Preusse, F., van der Meer, E., Ullwer, D., Brucks, M., Krüger, F., &
Wartenburger, I. (2010). Long-term characteristics of analogical pro-
cessing in high-school students with high fluid intelligence: An fMRI
study. ZDM Mathematics Education, 42, 635–647. doi: 10.1007/
s11858-010-0259-4
Raven, J. C. (1958). Advanced progressive matrices. London, UK: Lewis.
Steinhauer, S. R., Siegle, G. J., Condray, R., & Pless, M. (2004). Sympa-
thetic and parasympathetic innervation of pupillary dilation during sus-
tained processing. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 52,
77–86. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2003.12.005
van der Meer, E. (1996). Memory and analogical reasoning. In D.
Herrmann, C. McEvoy, C. Hertzog, P. Hertel, & M. K. Johnson (Eds.),
Basic and applied memory research: Practical applications (pp. 139–
151). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
van der Meer, E., Beyer, R., Horn, J., Foth, M., Bornemann, B., Ries, J., . . .
Wartenburger, I. (2010). Resource allocation and fluid intelligence:
Insights from pupillometry. Psychophysiology, 47, 158–169. doi:
10.1111/j.1469-8986.2009.00884.x
Vigneau, F., Caissie, A. F., & Bors, A. D. (2006). Eye-movement analysis
demonstrates strategic influences on intelligence. Intelligence, 34, 261–
272. doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2005.11.003
(Received October 16, 2013; Accepted August 28, 2014)
This document is a scanned copy of a printed document. No warranty is given about the
accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material.