Distinct systems for automatic and cognitively controlled time measurement: evidence from neuroimaging

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4388(03)00036-9Get rights and content

Abstract

A recent review of neuroimaging data on time measurement argued that the brain activity seen in association with timing is not influenced by specific characteristics of the task performed. In contrast, we argue that careful analysis of this literature provides evidence for separate neural timing systems associated with opposing task characteristics. The ‘automatic’ system draws mainly upon motor circuits and the ‘cognitively controlled’ system depends upon prefrontal and parietal regions.

Introduction

Every action we take and every stimulus we perceive has a temporal dimension. The neural mechanisms used to measure time are currently a topic of intensive investigation – the number of neuroimaging studies seeking to define and describe them is growing rapidly, including more than 20 studies published since the year 2000. To date, no strong consensus has been reached about which brain regions are involved in time measurement; however, a recent review [1••] argues that the specific characteristics of the performed timing task do not affect the observed pattern of brain activity. Contrary to this, we suggest that much of the current ambiguity on the topic of neural time presentation may be due to the inappropriate grouping of studies that use very different time measurement tasks, thus drawing upon distinct neural timing systems. If this is the case, it should be possible to isolate the various neural systems involved in time measurement by a careful grouping of the literature, on the basis of the different task parameters used. In this review, we use precisely that approach, dividing studies of time representation according to three general task characteristics: the duration measured, the use of movement to define a temporal estimate, and the continuity and predictability of the task.

Section snippets

The importance of stimulus characteristics

Our decision to characterise studies in relation to interval duration and to use of movement builds on previous suggestions that these factors discriminate between two or more different time measurement systems. Evidence suggesting the existence of different neural systems for timing at different duration ranges includes: distinct psychophysical characteristics at different durations [2]; differential responses to pharmacological agents 2., 3., 4., 5., 6.; differential impairment of performance

The hypothesis: automatic versus cognitively controlled timing

On the basis of our predictions regarding how the three task characteristics discussed above draw on different neural resources, we propose that two distinct systems exist for measuring time in the types of behavioural tasks examined here. We also submit that each of the task characteristics discussed above helps to partially determine which system is active in any given task. One hypothesised system, which we will designate the ‘automatic’ timing system, is primarily involved in the continuous

Neuroimaging studies

Figure 1 summarises the published neuroimaging literature on primate time measurement 1.••, 9., 14., 27., 28., 29., 30., 31., 32., 33., 34., 35., 36., 37., 38., 39., 40., 41., 42., 43., 44., 45., 46., 47.••, 48., 49., 50., 51., 52.. It lists the areas of brain activity reported in each study in response to time measurement tasks. Tasks are categorised according to whether or not a duration greater than one second was measured, whether measured intervals were defined by movement, and whether

Challenges to the hypothesis — confounds

Because our analysis uses the most inclusive contrast from each dataset examined, much of the activity we describe may be due to task-related but non-temporal processes. Auditory, visual, and primary sensorimotor cortical activity found in association with automatic timing, for instance, might simply be due to sensory stimuli and motor responses. Some regions of the motor system, however, are active even in studies where very little movement or movement preparation (and in some cases none at

Conclusions

A clear dissociation in brain activity related to timing is seen when neuroimaging studies of time measurement are divided according the interval to be measured, the use of movement to define time, and the continuity or predictability of the task. This dissociation cannot be explained by confounding task characteristics alone, and thus provides support for the existence of two distinct systems for time measurement. One, which we term the ‘automatic’ system, is closely linked to the motor and

References and recommended reading

Papers of particular interest, published within the annual period of review, have been highlighted as:

  • of special interest

  • ••

    of outstanding interest

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Wellcome Trust and the Medical Research Council, UK.

References (58)

  • O. Gruber et al.

    Cerebral correlates of working memory for temporal information

    Neuroreport

    (2000)
  • L. Jancke et al.

    fMRI study of bimanual coordination

    Neuropsychol.

    (2000)
  • M. Jueptner et al.

    The human cerebellum and temporal information processing — results from a PET experiment

    Neuroreport.

    (1996)
  • R. Kawashima et al.

    Human cerebellum plays an important role in memory-timed finger movement: an fMRI study

    J. Neurophysiol.

    (2000)
  • F. Macar et al.

    Time processing reflected by EEG surface Laplacians

    Exp. Brain Res.

    (2002)
  • H. Onoe et al.

    Cortical networks recruited for time perception: a monkey positron emission tomography (PET) study

    Neuroimage

    (2001)
  • V.B. Penhune et al.

    Cerebellar contributions to motor timing: a PET study of auditory and visual rhythm reproduction

    J. Cogn. Neurosci.

    (1998)
  • K. Sakai

    Neural representation of a rhythm depends on its interval ratio

    J. Neurosci.

    (1999)
  • R.I. Schubotz et al.

    Interval and ordinal properties of sequences are associated with distinct premotor areas

    Cereb. Cortex

    (2001)
  • H. Volz et al.

    Time estimation in schizophrenia: an fMRI study at adjusted levels of difficulty

    Neuroreport

    (2001)
  • F. Macar et al.

    Activation of the supplementary motor area and of attentional networks during temporal processing

    Exp. Brain Res.

    (2002)
  • J. Gibbon et al.

    Toward a neurobiology of temporal cognition: advances and challenges

    Curr. Opin. Neurobiol.

    (1997)
  • T.H. Rammsayer et al.

    Pharmacologic properties of the internal clock underlying time perception in humans

    Neuropsychobiology

    (1992)
  • T.H. Rammsayer

    On dopaminergic modulation of temporal information processing

    Biol. Psychol.

    (1993)
  • T.H. Rammsayer et al.

    Duration discrimination of filled and empty auditory intervals: cognitive and perceptual factors

    Percept. Psychophys.

    (1991)
  • R.B. Ivry

    The representation of temporal information in perception and motor control

    Curr. Opin. Neurobiol.

    (1996)
  • Y.I. Arshavsky et al.

    Messages conveyed by spinocerebellar pathways during scratching in the cat. I. Activity of neurons of the lateral reticular nucleus

    Brain Res.

    (1978)
  • P.A. Lewis et al.

    Brain activity during non-automatic motor production of discrete multi-second intervals

    Neuroreport

    (2002)
  • Clarke S, Ivry R, Grinband J, Roberts S, Shimizu N: Exploring the domain of the cerebellar timing system. In Time,...
  • Cited by (682)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text