Top

Gepubliceerd in:

12-03-2020 | Original Article

Large as being on top of the world and small as hitting the roof: a common magnitude representation for the comparison of emotions and numbers

Auteurs: Giulio Baldassi, Mauro Murgia, Valter Prpic, Sara Rigutti, Dražen Domijan, Tiziano Agostini, Carlo Fantoni

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 3/2021

Abstract

Previous work on the direct speed–intensity association (SIA) on comparative judgement tasks involved spatially distributed responses over spatially distributed stimuli with high motivational significance like facial expressions of emotions. This raises the possibility that the inferred stimulus-driven regulation of lateralized motor reactivity described by SIA, which was against the one expected on the basis of a valence-specific lateral bias, was entirely due to attentional capture from motivational significance (beyond numerical cognition). In order to establish the relevance of numerical cognition on the regulation of attentional capture we ran two complementary experiments. These involved the same direct comparison task on stimulus pairs that were fully comparable in terms of their analog representation of intensity but with different representational domain and motivational significance: symbolic magnitudes with low motivational significance in experiment 1 vs. emotions with rather high motivational significance in experiment 2. The results reveal a general SIA and point to a general mechanism regulating comparative judgements. This is based on the way spatial attention is captured toward locations that contain the stimulus which is closest in term of relative intensity to the extremal values of the series, regardless from its representational domain being it symbolic or emotional.

vorige artikel Probing the mechanisms underlying numerosity-to-numeral mappings and their relation to math competence

volgende artikel Through the gateway of the senses: investigating the influence of sensory modality-specific retrieval cues on involuntary episodic memory

Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers

Abbreviations: ESC: Emotional Semantic Congruency effect; SC: Semantic Congruity effect; AE: Alternative Expectation; RT: Response Time; SIA: Speed-Intensity Association.

Fantoni et al. (2019) showed in three Experiments how SIA model provided a thoughtful and effective predictor for speed performances in comparative judgement of facial expressions of emotions, when valence was either task relevant (Experiment 1 and 2) or task irrelevant (Experiment 3) and in both presence (Experiment 1 and 3) or absence (Experiment 2) of foveal emotion presentation conditions (Experiment 1, with a direct valence comparison task in presence of foveation: r_c = 0.69, 95% CI [0.68, 0.71]; Experiment 2, with a direct valence comparison task in absence of foveation: r_c =0 .75, 95% CI [0.73, 0.76]; and in Experiment 3, with an indirect emotion identification task in presence of foveation: r_c = 0.73, 95% CI [0.72, 0.75]).

see Fantoni et al. (2019), for details on the procedure of lme fitting. The estimation of the goodness of fit was based on AIC-index, BIC-index, and χ². The estimates of significance of lme’s fixed effects and parameters were based on Type III F-tests; the estimates of effect size were based on the concordance correlation coefficient r_c, and Cohen’s d supporting results of post-hoc tests were performed on lme estimated coefficients, with paired sample t-tests with unequal variance.

Audley, R. J., & Wallis, C. P. (1964). Response instructions and the speed of relative judgements: I. Some experiments on brightness discrimination. British Journal of Psychology, 55(1), 59–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1964.tb00898.x.CrossRef

Banks, W. P., Clark, H. H., & Lucy, P. (1975). The locus of the semantic congruity effect in comparative judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1(1), 35–47. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.1.1.35.CrossRef

Banks, W. P., & Flora, J. (1977). Semantic and perceptual processes in symbolic comparisons. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 3(2), 278–290. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.3.2.278.CrossRefPubMed

Banks, W. P., Fujii, M., & Kayra-Stuart, F. (1976). Semantic congruity effects in comparative judgments of magnitudes of digits. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 2(3), 435–447. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.2.3.435.CrossRef

Banks, W. P., & Root, M. (1979). Semantic congruity effects in judgments of loudness. Perception & Psychophysics, 26(2), 133–142. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03208307.CrossRef

Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: keep it maximal. Journal of memory and language, 68(3), 255–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001.CrossRef

Brannon, E. M. (2006). The representation of numerical magnitude. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 16(2), 222–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2006.03.002.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Bueti, D., & Walsh, V. (2009). The parietal cortex and the representation of time, space, number and other magnitudes. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 364(1525), 1831–1840. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2009.0028.CrossRef

Cantlon, J. F., & Brannon, E. M. (2005). Semantic congruity affects numerical judgments similarly in monkeys and humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(45), 16507–16511. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas0506463102.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Cantlon, J. F., Platt, M. L., & Brannon, E. M. (2009). Beyond the number domain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(2), 83–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2008.11.007.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Carretié, L. (2014). Exogenous (automatic) attention to emotional stimuli: a review. Cognitive, Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience, 14(4), 1228–1258. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-014-0270-2.CrossRef

Casasanto, D. (2009). Embodiment of abstract concepts: Good and bad in right- and left-handers. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138(3), 351–367. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015854.CrossRef

Casasanto, D. (2011). Different bodies, different minds: the body specificity of language and thought. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(6), 378–383. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721411422058.CrossRef

Casasanto, D., & Chrysikou, E. G. (2011). When left is “right”: motor fluency shapes abstract concepts. Psychological Science, 22(4), 419–422. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611401755.CrossRefPubMed

Cheetham, M., Suter, P., & Jäncke, L. (2011). The human likeness dimension of the ‘uncanny valley hypothesis’: behavioral and functional MRI findings. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 5, 126. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2011.00126.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Cheetham, M., Wu, L., Pauli, P., & Jancke, L. (2015). Arousal, valence, and the uncanny valley: psychophysiological and self-report findings. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00981.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Chen, D., Lu, H., & Holyoak, K. J. (2014). The discovery and comparison of symbolic magnitudes. Cognitive Psychology, 71, 27–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2014.01.002.CrossRefPubMed

Cherry, E. G. (1953). Some experiments on the recognition of speech, with one and with two ears. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 25(5), 975–979. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1907229.CrossRef

Clark, H. H., Carpenter, P. A., & Just, M. A. (1973). On the meeting of semantics and perception. In W. G. Chase (Ed.), Visual Information Processing (pp. 311–381). https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-170150-5.50013-5

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: L. Erlbaum Associates.

Dalmaso, M., & Vicovaro, M. (2019). Evidence of SQUARC and distance effects in a weight comparison task. Cognitive Processing, 20(2), 163–173. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-019-00905-2.CrossRefPubMed

Dehaene, S. (2003). The neural basis of the Weber-Fechner law: a logarithmic mental number line. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(4), 145–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00055-X.CrossRefPubMed

Dehaene, S., Bossini, S., & Giraux, P. (1993). The mental representation of parity and number magnitude. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122(3), 371–396. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.122.3.371.CrossRef

Dehaene, S., Izard, V., Spelke, E., & Pica, P. (2008). Log or linear? Distinct intuitions of the number scale in Western and Amazonian indigene cultures. Science, 320(5880), 1217–1220. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1156540.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Delgado, M. R., Nearing, K. I., LeDoux, J. E., & Phelps, E. A. (2008). Neural circuitry underlying the regulation of conditioned fear and its relation to extinction. Neuron, 59(5), 829–838. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2008.06.029.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Ellis, S. H. (1972). Interaction of encoding and retrieval in relative age judgments: an extension of the ‘crossover’ effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 94(3), 291–294. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0032800.CrossRef

Fantoni, C., Baldassi, G., Rigutti, S., Prpic, V., Murgia, M., & Agostini, T. (2019). Emotional semantic congruency based on stimulus driven comparative judgements. Cognition, 190, 20–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2019.04.014.CrossRefPubMed

Fantoni, C., & Gerbino, W. (2014). Body actions change the appearance of facial expressions. PLoS ONE, 9(9), e108211. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0108211.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Fantoni, C., Rigutti, S., & Gerbino, W. (2016). Bodily action penetrates affective perception. PeerJ, 4, e1677. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.1677.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146.CrossRefPubMed

Ferrari, V., Codispoti, M., Cardinale, R., & Bradley, M. M. (2008). Directed and motivated attention during processing of natural scenes. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20(10), 1753–1761. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2008.20121.CrossRefPubMed

Fischer, M. H. (2003). Cognitive representation of negative numbers. Psychological Science, 14(3), 278–282. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.03435.CrossRefPubMed

Fischer, M. H., & Shaki, S. (2016). Measuring spatial–numerical associations: evidence for a purely conceptual link. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 80(1), 109–112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-015-0646-0.CrossRefPubMed

Fox, E. (2002). Processing emotional facial expressions: the role of anxiety and awareness. Cognitive, Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience, 2(1), 52–63. https://doi.org/10.3758/CABN.2.1.52.CrossRef

Frank, M. C., Everett, D. L., Fedorenko, E., & Gibson, E. (2008). Number as a cognitive technology: evidence from Pirahã language and cognition. Cognition, 108(3), 819–824. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2008.04.007.CrossRefPubMed

Friend, K. E. (1973). Perceptual encoding in comparative judgments of race. Memory & Cognition, 1(1), 80–84. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03198074.CrossRef

Fumarola, A., Prpic, V., Da Pos, O., Murgia, M., Umiltà, C., & Agostini, T. (2014). Automatic spatial association for luminance. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 76(3), 759–765. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-013-0614-y.CrossRef

Fumarola, A., Prpic, V., Fornasier, D., Sartoretto, F., Agostini, T., & Umiltà, C. (2016). The spatial representation of angles. Perception, 45(11), 1320–1330.CrossRefPubMed

Gallistel, C. R., & Gelman, R. (1992). Preverbal and verbal counting and computation. Cognition, 44(1–2), 43–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(92)90050-R.CrossRefPubMed

Gevers, W., Verguts, T., Reynvoet, B., Caessens, B., & Fias, W. (2006). Numbers and space: a computational model of the SNARC effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32(1), 32–44. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.32.1.32.CrossRefPubMed

Greenberg, M. G. (1963). J Scale models for preference behavior. Psychometrika, 28(3), 265–271. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02289574.CrossRef

Hansen, C. H., & Hansen, R. D. (1988). Finding the face in the crowd: an anger superiority effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 917–924. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.917.CrossRefPubMed

Hansen, C. H., & Hansen, R. D. (1994). Automatic emotion: attention and facial efference. In The heart’s eye: emotional influences in perception and attention (pp. 217–243). https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-410560-7.50016-8

Hines, T. M. (1990). An odd effect: lengthened reaction times for judgments about odd digits. Memory & Cognition, 18(1), 40–46. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03202644.CrossRef

Holmes, K. J., Alcat, C., & Lourenco, S. F. (2019). Is emotional magnitude spatialized? A further investigation. Cognitive Science, 43(4), e12727. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12727.CrossRefPubMed

Holmes, K. J., & Lourenco, S. F. (2011). Common spatial organization of number and emotional expression: a mental magnitude line. Brain and Cognition, 77(2), 315–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2011.07.002.CrossRefPubMed

Holyoak, K. J. (1978). Comparative judgments with numerical reference points. Cognitive Psychology, 10(2), 203–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(78)90014-2.CrossRef

Holyoak, K. J., & Mah, W. A. (1982). Cognitive reference points in judgments of symbolic magnitude. Cognitive Psychology, 14(3), 328–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(82)90013-5.CrossRef

Holyoak, K. J., & Walker, J. H. (1976). Subjective magnitude information in semantic orderings. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 15(3), 287–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-5371(76)90026-8.CrossRef

Homa, D., Haver, B., & Schwartz, T. (1976). Perceptibility of schematic face stimuli: evidence for a perceptual Gestalt. Memory & Cognition, 4(2), 176–185. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03213162.CrossRef

Hsee, C. K. (1996). The evaluability hypothesis: an explanation for preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of alternatives. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67(3), 247–257. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1996.0077.CrossRef

Hsee, C. K., & Leclerc, F. (1998). Will products look more attractive when presented separately or together? Journal of Consumer Research, 25(2), 175–186. https://doi.org/10.1086/209534.CrossRef

Izard, V., & Dehaene, S. (2008). Calibrating the mental number line. Cognition, 106(3), 1221–1247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.06.004.CrossRefPubMed

Jamieson, D. G., & Petrusic, W. M. (1975). Relational judgments with remembered stimuli. Perception & Psychophysics, 18(6), 373–378. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03204108.CrossRef

Jones, S. M., Cantlon, J. F., Merritt, D. J., & Brannon, E. M. (2010). Context affects the numerical semantic congruity effect in rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta). Behavioural Processes, 83(2), 191–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2009.12.009.CrossRefPubMed

Kaufman, E. L., Lord, M. W., Reese, T. W., & Volkmann, J. (1949). The discrimination of visual number. The American Journal of Psychology, 62, 498–525. https://doi.org/10.2307/1418556.CrossRefPubMed

Lane, R. D., Chua, P. M., & Dolan, R. J. (1999). Common effects of emotional valence, arousal and attention on neural activation during visual processing of pictures. Neuropsychologia, 37(9), 989–997. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0028-3932(99)00017-2.CrossRefPubMed

Langner, O., Dotsch, R., Bijlstra, G., Wigboldus, D. H. J., Hawk, S. T., & van Knippenberg, A. (2010). Presentation and validation of the Radboud Faces Database. Cognition and Emotion, 24(8), 1377–1388. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930903485076.CrossRef

Lee, D., Chun, J., & Cho, S. (2016). The instructional dependency of SNARC effects reveals flexibility of the space-magnitude association of nonsymbolic and symbolic magnitudes. Perception, 45(5), 552–567. https://doi.org/10.1177/0301006616629027.CrossRefPubMed

Leth-Steensen, C., Petrusic, W. M., & Shaki, S. (2014). Enhancing semantic congruity effects with category–contingent comparative judgments. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01199.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Lourenco, S. F., & Aulet, L. S. (2019). Cross-magnitude interactions across development: longitudinal evidence for a general magnitude system. Developmental Science, 22(1), e12707. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12707.CrossRefPubMed

Lourenco, S. F., Ayzenberg, V., & Lyu, J. (2016). A general magnitude system in human adults: evidence from a subliminal priming paradigm. Cortex, 81, 93–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2016.04.013.CrossRefPubMed

Lu, H., Chen, D., & Holyoak, K. J. (2012). Bayesian analogy with relational transformations. Psychological Review, 119(3), 617–648. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028719.CrossRefPubMed

MacDorman, K. F., & Chattopadhyay, D. (2016). Reducing consistency in human realism increases the uncanny valley effect; increasing category uncertainty does not. Cognition, 146, 190–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2015.09.019.CrossRefPubMed

Marks, D. F. (1972). Relative judgment: a phenomenon and a theory. Perception & Psychophysics, 11(2), 156–160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03210364.CrossRef

Medley, J. (2012). Human anatomy fundamentals. https://design.tutsplus.com/series/human-anatomy-fundamentals--cms-724

Miller, J. (1991). Short report: reaction time analysis with outlier exclusion: bias varies with sample size. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 43(4), 907–912. https://doi.org/10.1080/14640749108400962.CrossRef

Morris, J. S., Friston, K. J., Büchel, C., Frith, C. D., Young, A. W., Calder, A. J., et al. (1998). A neuromodulatory role for the human amygdala in processing emotional facial expressions. Brain: A Journal of Neurology, 121(1), 47–57. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/121.1.47.CrossRef

Moyer, R. S., & Landauer, T. K. (1967). Time required for judgements of numerical inequality. Nature, 215(5109), 1519. https://doi.org/10.1038/2151519a0.CrossRefPubMed

Nuerk, H.-C., Iversen, W., & Willmes, K. (2004). Notational modulation of the SNARC and the MARC (linguistic markedness of response codes) effect. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. A, Human Experimental Psychology, 57(5), 835–863. https://doi.org/10.1080/02724980343000512.CrossRefPubMed

Öhman, A., Flykt, A., & Esteves, F. (2001a). Emotion drives attention: detecting the snake in the grass. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130(3), 466–478. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.130.3.466.CrossRef

Öhman, A., Lundqvist, D., & Esteves, F. (2001b). The face in the crowd revisited: a threat advantage with schematic stimuli. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(3), 381–396. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.3.381.CrossRefPubMed

Oldfield, R. C. (1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9(1), 97–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/0028-3932(71)90067-4.CrossRefPubMed

Patro, K., & Haman, M. (2012). The spatial–numerical congruity effect in preschoolers. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 111(3), 534–542. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2011.09.006.CrossRefPubMed

Patro, K., & Shaki, S. (2016). SNARC for numerosities is modulated by comparative instruction (and resembles some non-numerical effects). Cognitive Processing, 17(2), 127–137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-015-0745-2.CrossRefPubMed

Petrusic, W. M. (1992). Semantic congruity effects and theories of the comparison process. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18(4), 962–986. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.18.4.962.CrossRefPubMed

Petrusic, W. M., Shaki, S., & Leth-Steensen, C. (2008). Remembered instructions with symbolic and perceptual comparisons. Perception & Psychophysics, 70(2), 179–189. https://doi.org/10.3758/PP.70.2.179.CrossRef

Pica, P., Lemer, C., Izard, V., & Dehaene, S. (2004). Exact and approximate arithmetic in an Amazonian indigene group. Science, 306(5695), 499–503. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1102085.CrossRefPubMed

Pitt, B., & Casasanto, D. (2018). Spatializing emotion: no evidence for a domain-general magnitude system. Cognitive Science, 42(7), 2150–2180. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12568.CrossRefPubMed

Proctor, R. W., & Xiong, A. (2015). Polarity correspondence as a general compatibility principle. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(6), 446–451. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721415607305.CrossRef

Prpic, V., Fumarola, A., De TommasoLuccio, M. R., Murgia, M., & Agostini, T. (2016). Separate mechanisms for magnitude and order processing in the spatial–numerical association of response codes (SNARC) effect: The strange case of musical note values. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 42(8), 1241–1251. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000217.CrossRefPubMed

Prpic, V., Soranzo, A., Santoro, I., Fantoni, C., Galmonte, A., Agostini, T., et al. (2018). SNARC-like compatibility effects for physical and phenomenal magnitudes: a study on visual illusions. Psychological Research (advance online publication). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-018-1125-1.CrossRef

Ratcliff, R. (1993). Methods for dealing with reaction time outliers. Psychological Bulletin, 114(3), 510–532. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.114.3.510.CrossRefPubMed

Reeck, C., & Egner, T. (2015). Interactions between attention and emotion. In A. W. Toga (Ed.), Brain mapping: an encyclopedic reference (3rd ed.). Elsevier: Academic Press.

Ren, P., Nicholls, M. E. R., Ma, Y., & Chen, L. (2011). Size matters: non-numerical magnitude affects the spatial coding of response. PLoS ONE, 6(8), e23553. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0023553.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Sabatinelli, D., Bradley, M. M., Fitzsimmons, J. R., & Lang, P. J. (2005). Parallel amygdala and inferotemporal activation reflect emotional intensity and fear relevance. NeuroImage, 24(4), 1265–1270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.12.015.CrossRefPubMed

Shafir, E., Simonson, I., & Tversky, A. (1993). Reason-based choice. Cognition, 49, 11–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(93)90034-S.CrossRefPubMed

Shaki, S., & Algom, D. (2002). The locus and nature of semantic congruity in symbolic comparison: evidence from the Stroop effect. Memory & Cognition, 30(1), 3–17. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195260.CrossRef

Shaki, S., & Fischer, M. H. (2008). Reading space into numbers—a cross-linguistic comparison of the SNARC effect. Cognition, 108(2), 590–599. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2008.04.001.CrossRefPubMed

Shaki, S., & Fischer, M. H. (2018). Deconstructing spatial–numerical associations. Cognition, 175, 109–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.02.022.CrossRefPubMed

Shaki, S., Fischer, M. H., & Petrusic, W. M. (2009). Reading habits for both words and numbers contribute to the SNARC effect. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16(2), 328–331. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.16.2.328.CrossRef

Shaki, S., Petrusic, W. M., & Leth-Steensen, C. (2012). SNARC effects with numerical and non-numerical symbolic comparative judgments: instructional and cultural dependencies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38(2), 515–530. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026729.CrossRefPubMed

Treisman, A. (1982). Perceptual grouping and attention in visual search for features and for objects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 8(2), 194–214.PubMed

Trick, L. M., & Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1994). Why are small and large numbers enumerated differently? A limited-capacity preattentive stage in vision. Psychological Review, 101(1), 80–102. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.101.1.80.CrossRefPubMed

Verguts, T., & Fias, W. (2004). Representation of number in animals and humans: a neural model. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16(9), 1493–1504. https://doi.org/10.1162/0898929042568497.CrossRefPubMed

Vuilleumier, P., Armony, J. L., Driver, J., & Dolan, R. J. (2003). Distinct spatial frequency sensitivities for processing faces and emotional expressions. Nature Neuroscience, 6(6), 624–631. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1057.CrossRefPubMed

Walsh, V. (2003). A theory of magnitude: common cortical metrics of time, space and quantity. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(11), 483–488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2003.09.002.CrossRefPubMed

Whelan, R. (2008). Effective analysis of reaction time data. The Psychological Record, 58(3), 475–482. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395630.CrossRef

Wood, G., Willmes, K., Nuerk, H.-C., & Fischer, M. H. (2008). On the cognitive link between space and number: a meta-analysis of the SNARC effect. Psychology Science, 50(4), 489–525.

Zhou, Y., Ho, H.-N., & Watanabe, J. (2017). Perceptual-semantic congruency facilitates semantic discrimination of thermal qualities. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02113.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Titel: Large as being on top of the world and small as hitting the roof: a common magnitude representation for the comparison of emotions and numbers
Auteurs: Giulio Baldassi
Mauro Murgia
Valter Prpic
Sara Rigutti
Dražen Domijan
Tiziano Agostini
Carlo Fantoni
Publicatiedatum: 12-03-2020
Uitgeverij: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 3/2021
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-020-01306-3

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 3/2021

Human vs. machine: the psychological and behavioral consequences of being compared to an outperforming artificial agent

Through the gateway of the senses: investigating the influence of sensory modality-specific retrieval cues on involuntary episodic memory

Affective states influence emotion perception: evidence for emotional egocentricity

Does temporal predictability of tasks influence task choice?

Case mixing impedes early lexical access: converging evidence from the masked priming paradigm

Phonological encoding is free from orthographic influence: evidence from a picture variant of the phonological Stroop task