Top

Gepubliceerd in:

01-02-2025 | Research

Linguistic markedness and body specificity in parity judgments: evidence from a go/no-go task

Auteurs: Mia Šetić Beg, Vanja Sopta, Dražen Domijan

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 1/2025

Abstract

In two experiments we tested the contribution of linguistic markedness and affective evaluation (i.e., body specificity) to the representation of abstract numerical concepts, such as parity. To this end, we employed speeded parity judgments of digits (Exp 1) or number words (Exp 2) in a go/no-go task. Fifty right-handed participants completed four blocks of trials in each experiment. In two blocks, they responded to even numbers (2, 4, 6, or 8) and in the other two blocks they responded to odd numbers (1, 3, 7, or 9). In each pair of blocks, they responded once with their right hand and once with their left hand. Results revealed faster right-hand responses to even than to odd digits (Exp 1), and faster left-hand response to odd than to even number words (Exp 2). In addition, in both experiments, we found faster responses to small-odd than large-odd digits and number words. The results support the conclusion that the affective evaluation of parity and linguistic markedness makes independent contributions to the representation of parity.

vorige artikel Beneficial effects of imagination of successful action after an actual error on baseline performances in non-expert young tennis players

volgende artikel Motion in the depth direction appears faster when the target is closer to the observer

Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 390–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005CrossRef

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/j.jml.2012.11.001CrossRef

Berch, D. B., Foley, E. J., Hill, R. J., & Ryan, P. M. (1999). Extracting parity and magnitude from Arabic numerals: Developmental changes in number processing and mental representation. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 74(4), 286–308. https://doi.org/10.1006/jecp.1999.2518CrossRefPubMed

Brauer, M., & Curtin, J. J. (2018). Linear mixed-effects models and the analysis of nonindependent data: A unified framework to analyze categorical and continuous independent variables that vary within-subjects and/or within-items. Psychological Methods, 23(3), 389–411. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000159CrossRefPubMed

Brysbaert, M. (1995). Arabic number reading: On the nature of the numerical scale and the origin of phonological recoding. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124(4), 434–452. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.124.4.434CrossRef

Bull, R., Cleland, A. A., & Mitchell, T. (2013). Sex differences in the spatial representation of number. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142(1), 181–192. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028387CrossRefPubMed

Campbell, J. I., & Thompson, V. A. (2012). MorePower 6.0 for ANOVA with relational confidence intervals and Bayesian analysis. Behavior Research Methods, 44(4), 1255–1265. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-012-0186-0CrossRefPubMed

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/a0015854CrossRefPubMed

Cho, Y. S., & Proctor, R. W. (2007). When is an odd number not odd? Influence of task rule on the MARC effect for numeric classification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33(5), 832–842. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.33.5.832CrossRefPubMed

Cipora, K., Hohol, M., Nuerk, H. C., Willmes, K., Brożek, B., Kucharzyk, B., & Nęcka, E. (2016). Professional mathematicians differ from controls in their spatial-numerical associations. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 80(4), 710–726. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-015-0677-6CrossRefPubMed

Cipora, K., Soltanlou, M., Reips, U. D., & Nuerk, H. C. (2019). The SNARC and MARC effects measured online: Large-scale assessment methods in flexible cognitive effects. Behavior Research Methods, 51(4), 1676–1692. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-019-01213-5CrossRefPubMed

Cousineau, D. (2005). Confidence intervals in within-subject designs: A simpler solution to Loftus and Masson’s method. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 1, 42–45. https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.01.1.p042CrossRef

de la Vega, I., de Filippis, M., Lachmair, M., Dudschig, C., & Kaup, B. (2012). Emotional valence and physical space: Limits of interaction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38(2), 375–385. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024979CrossRefPubMed

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

De Rosario-Martinez, H. (2015). Phia: Post-hoc interaction analysis. R package version 0.2-1. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=phia

Dienes, Z. (2014). Using Bayes to get the most out of non-significant results. Frontiers in Psycholology, 5, 781. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00781CrossRef

Dienes, Z., & McLatchie, N. (2018). Four reasons to prefer Bayesian over significance testing. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 25, 207–218. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-017-1266-zCrossRefPubMed

Fischer, M. H. (2008). Finger counting habits modulate spatial-numerical associations. Cortex, 44(4), 386–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2007.08.004CrossRefPubMed

Gomez, P., Ratcliff, R., & Perea, M. (2007). A model of the go/no-go task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136(3), 389–413. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.136.3.389CrossRefPubMed

Heubner, L., Cipora, K., Soltanlou, M., Schlenker, M. L., Lipowska, K., Göbel, S. M., Domahs, F., Haman, M., & Nuerk, H. C. (2018). A mental odd-even continuum account: Some numbers may be “more odd” than others and some numbers may be “more even” than others. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1081. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01081CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Hines, T. M. (1990). An odd effect: Lengthened reaction times for judgments about odd digits. Memory and Cognition, 18(1), 40–46. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03202644CrossRefPubMed

Hines, T. M. (2010). The odd effect and multiple meanings in English of the words “odd” and “even.” Psychological Reports, 107(2), 443–446. https://doi.org/10.2466/04.10.11.22.pr0.107.5.443-446CrossRefPubMed

Huber, S., Klein, E., Graf, M., Nuerk, H. C., Moeller, K., & Willmes, K. (2015). Embodied markedness of parity? Examining handedness effects on parity judgments. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 79(6), 963–977. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-014-0626-9CrossRefPubMed

Körner, A., Castillo, M., Drijvers, L., Fischer, M. H., Günther, F., Marelli, M., Platonova, O., Rinaldi, L., Shaki, S., Trujillo, J. P., Tsaregorodtseva, O., & Glenberg, A. M. (2023). Embodied processing at six linguistic granularity levels: A consensus paper. Journal of Cognition, 6(1), 60. https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.231CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Kousta, S. T., Vigliocco, G., Vinson, D. P., Andrews, M., & Del Campo, E. (2011). The representation of abstract words: Why emotion matters. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140(1), 14–34. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021446CrossRefPubMed

Krajcsi, A., Lengyel, G., & Laczkó, Á. (2018). Interference between number magnitude and parity. Experimental Psychology, 65(2), 71–83. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000394CrossRefPubMed

Lakens, D., Semin, G. R., & Foroni, F. (2012). But for the bad, there would not be good: Grounding valence in brightness through shared relational structures. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141(3), 584–594. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026468CrossRefPubMed

Leibovich, T., & Ansari, D. (2016). The symbol-grounding problem in numerical cognition: A review of theory, evidence, and outstanding questions. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70(1), 12–23. https://doi.org/10.1037/cep0000070CrossRefPubMed

Leth-Steensen, C., & Citta, R. (2016). Bad-good constraints on a polarity correspondence account for the spatial-numerical association of response codes (SNARC) and markedness association of response codes (MARC) effects. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69(3), 482–494. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2015.1055283CrossRef

Morey, R. D., & Rouder, J. N. (2023). BayesFactor: Computation of Bayes factors for common designs. R package version 0.9.12-4.4. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=BayesFactor

Morey, R. D. (2008). Confidence intervals from normalized data: A correction to Cousineau (2005). Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 4, 61–64. https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.04.2.p061CrossRef

Nishiyama, Y. (2006). A study of odd- and even-number cultures. Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, 26(6), 479–484. https://doi.org/10.1177/0270467606295408CrossRef

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

Oberauer, K. (2022). The importance of random slopes in mixed models for Bayesian hypothesis testing. Psychological Science, 33(4), 648–665. https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976211046884CrossRefPubMed

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)90067-4CrossRefPubMed

Peirce, J. W. (2007). Psychopy-psychophysics software in Python. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 162, 8–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2006.11.017CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Pinto, M., Pellegrino, M., Lasaponara, S., Cestari, V., & Doricchi, F. (2019). Contrasting left/right codes for response selection must not be necessarily associated with contrasting numerical features to get the SNARC. Acta Psychologica, 198, 102887. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2019.102887CrossRefPubMed

Proctor, R. W., & Cho, Y. S. (2006). Polarity correspondence: A general principle for performance of speeded binary classification tasks. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 416–442. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.3.416CrossRefPubMed

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/10.1177/0963721415607305CrossRef

R Core Team. (2023). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna: Austria. https://www.R-project.org/

Reynvoet, B., & Brysbaert, M. (1999). Single-digit and two-digit Arabic numerals address the same semantic number line. Cognition, 72(2), 191–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0010-0277(99)00048-7CrossRefPubMed

Schroeder, P. A., & Pfister, R. (2015). Arbitrary numbers counter fair decisions: Trails of markedness in card distribution. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 240. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00240CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Segal, H., Tzelgov, J., & Algom, D. (2024). Walking to a number: Is there affective involvement in generating the SNARC effect in numerical cognition? Frontiers in Psychology, 15, 1384818. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1384818CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Šetić Beg, M., Čičko, J., & Domijan, D. (2021). Symbol grounding of number words in the subitization range. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 85(2), 720–733. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-019-01265-4CrossRefPubMed

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

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

Shepard, R. N., Kilpatric, D. W., & Cunningham, J. P. (1975). The internal representation of numbers. Cognitive Psychology, 7(1), 82–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(75)90006-7CrossRef

Sherman, M. A. (1973). Bound to be easier? The negative prefix and sentence comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12, 76–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5371(73)80062-3CrossRef

Sherman, M. A. (1976). Adjectival negation and the comprehension of multiply negated sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 15, 143–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-5371(76)90015-3CrossRef

Singmann, H., Bolker, B., Westfall, J., Aust, F., & Ben-Shachar, M. (2023). Afex: Analysis of factorial experiments. R package version 1.3-0. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=afex

Sixtus, E., Lonnemann, J., Fischer, M. H., & Werner, K. (2019). Mental number representations in 2D space. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 172. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00172CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Topić, V., Stojić, S., & Domijan, D. (2022). An implicit task reveals space-time associations along vertical and diagonal axes. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 86(4), 1252–1261. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-021-01561-yCrossRefPubMed

van Dijck, J. P., & Fias, W. (2011). A working memory account for spatial-numerical associations. Cognition, 119(1), 114–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2010.12.013CrossRefPubMed

Vigliocco, G., Kousta, S. T., Della Rosa, P. A., Vinson, D. P., Tettamanti, M., Devlin, J. T., & Cappa, S. F. (2014). The neural representation of abstract words: The role of emotion. Cerebral Cortex, 24(7), 1767–1777. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bht025CrossRefPubMed

Warriner, A. B., Kuperman, V., & Brysbaert, M. (2013). Norms of valence, arousal, and dominance for 13,915 English lemmas. Behavior Research Methods, 45(4), 1191–1207. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-012-0314-xCrossRefPubMed

Willmes, K., & Iversen, W. (1995). On the internal representation of number parity. In Paper presented at the Spring annual general meeting of the British Neuropsychological Society. London.

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.

Zohar-Shai, B., Tzelgov, J., Karni, A., & Rubinsten, O. (2017). It does exist! A left-to-right spatial-numerical association of response codes (SNARC) effect among native Hebrew speakers. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 43(4), 719–728. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000336CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Linguistic markedness and body specificity in parity judgments: evidence from a go/no-go task
Auteurs: Mia Šetić Beg
Vanja Sopta
Dražen Domijan
Publicatiedatum: 01-02-2025
Uitgeverij: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 1/2025
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-024-02062-4

Andere artikelen Uitgave 1/2025

The effect of pleasurable emotions on weight perception

Research

The CASE of brand names during sentence reading

Research

Does cognitive inhibition contribute to working memory and reasoning during childhood?

Research

Implications of neural integration of math and spatial experiences for math ability and math anxiety

Original

Input device matters for measures of behaviour in online experiments

Open Access
Research

A systematic review of human odometry

Review