Top

Gepubliceerd in:

09-04-2018 | Original Article

Time dependency of the SNARC effect for different number formats: evidence from saccadic responses

Auteurs: Alexandra Pressigout, Agnès Charvillat, Karima Mersad, Karine Doré-Mazars

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 7/2019

Abstract

In line with the suggestion that the strength of the spatial numerical association of response codes (SNARC) effect was time dependent, the aim of the present study was to assess whether the association strength depends on the processing time of numerical quantity and/or of the time to initiate responses. More specifically, we examined whether and how the SNARC effect could be modulated by number format and effector type. Experiment 1 compared the effect induced by Arabic numbers and number words on the basis of saccadic responses in a parity judgment task. Indeed, previous studies have shown that Arabic numbers lead to faster processing than number words. The results replicated the SNARC effect with Arabic numbers, but not with number words. Experiment 2 was similar to Experiment 1, but this time manual responses (i.e., responses far slower than saccadic ones) were recorded. A strong SNARC effect was observed for both number formats. Further analyses revealed a correlation between mean individual response times and the strength of the SNARC effect. We proposed that the initiation times for saccadic responses may be too short for the SNARC effect to appear, in particular with the written number format for which activation of magnitude takes time. We conclude in terms of time variations resulting from processing specificities related with number format, effector type and also individual reaction and processing speed.

vorige artikel Spatial transformation abilities and their relation to later mathematics performance

volgende artikel Differences in modal distortion in time perception due to working memory capacity: a response with a developmental study in children and adults

Brysbaert, M. (2018) Numbers and language: What’s new in the past 25 years?. In A. Henik & W. Fias (Eds.), Heterogeneity of Function in Numerical Cognition. Amsterdam: Elsevier Academic Press.

Bulf, H., Cassia, V. M., & de Hevia, M. D. (2014). Are numbers, size and brightness equally efficient in orienting visual attention? Evidence from an eye-tracking study. PLoS One, 9(6), e99499. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0099499.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Bulf, H., de Hevia, M. D., & Cassia, V. M. (2016). Small on the left, large on the right: Numbers orient visual attention onto space in preverbal infants. Developmental Science, 19(3), 394–401.CrossRefPubMed

Bull, R., Cleland, A. A., & Mitchell, T. (2013). Sex differences in the spatial representation of number. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142(1), 181.CrossRef

Carling, K. (2000). Resistant outlier rules and the non-Gaussian case. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 33(3), 249–258.CrossRef

Casarotti, M., Michielin, M., Zorzi, M., & Umiltà, C. (2007). Temporal order judgment reveals how number magnitude affects visuospatial attention. Cognition, 102(1), 101–117.CrossRef

Cipora, K., & Nuerk, H. C. (2013). Is the SNARC effect related to the level of mathematics? No systematic relationship observed despite more power, more repetitions, and more direct assessment of arithmetic skill. Quarterly journal of experimental psychology, 66(10), 1974–1991.CrossRef

Coltheart, M., Rastle, K., Perry, C., Langdon, R., & Ziegler, J. (2001). DRC: a dual route cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud. Psychological Review, 108(1), 204.CrossRefPubMed

Damian, M. F. (2004). Asymmetries in the processing of Arabic digits and number words. Memory & Cognition, 32(1), 164–171.CrossRef

Dehaene, S., Bossini, S., & Giraux, P. (1993). The mental representation of parity and number magnitude. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122(3), 371.CrossRef

Fabbri, M. (2013). Finger counting habits and spatial-numerical association in horizontal and vertical orientations. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 13(1–2), 95–110.CrossRef

Fattorini, E., Pinto, M., Rotondaro, F., & Doricchi, F. (2015). Perceiving numbers does not cause automatic shifts of spatial attention. Cortex, 73, 298–316.CrossRefPubMed

Fias, W. (1996). The importance of magnitude information in numerical processing: Evidence from the SNARC effect. Mathematical Cognition, 2(1), 95–110.CrossRef

Fias, W. (2001). Two routes for the processing of verbal numbers: Evidence from the SNARC effect. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 65(4), 250–259.CrossRefPubMed

Fischer, M. H. (2001). Number processing induces spatial performance biases. Neurology, 57(5), 822–826.CrossRefPubMed

Fischer, M. H. (2008). Finger counting habits modulate spatial-numerical associations. Cortex, 44(4), 386–392.CrossRefPubMed

Fischer, M. H., Castel, A. D., Dodd, M. D., & Pratt, J. (2003). Perceiving numbers causes spatial shifts of attention. Nature Neuroscience, 6(6), 555–556.CrossRef

Fischer, M. H., Shaki, S., & Cruise, A. (2009). It takes just one word to quash a SNARC. Experimental Psychology, 56(5), 361–366.CrossRefPubMed

Fischer, M. H., Warlop, N., Hill, R. L., & Fias, W. (2004). Oculomotor bias induced by number perception. Experimental Psychology, 51(2), 91–97.CrossRefPubMed

Fitousi, D., Shaki, S., & Algom, D. (2009). The role of parity, physical size, and magnitude in numerical cognition: The SNARC effect revisited.. Perception & Psychophysics, 71(1), 143–155.CrossRef

Ford, N., & Reynolds, M. G. (2016). Do Arabic numerals activate magnitude automatically? Evidence from the psychological refractory period paradigm. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23(5), 1528–1533.CrossRef

Gevers, W., Verguts, T., Reynvoet, B., Caessens, B., & Fias, W. (2006). Numbers and space: acomputational model of the SNARC effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32(1), 32.PubMed

Glaser, W. R. (1992). Picture naming. Cognition, 42(1), 61–105.CrossRefPubMed

Hartmann, M., & Fischer, M. H. (2016). Exploring the numerical mind by eye-tracking: a special issue. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 80, 325–333.CrossRefPubMed

Hesse, P. N., Fiehler, K., & Bremmer, F. (2015). SNARC Effect in Different Effectors. Perception, 45(1–2), 180–195.PubMed

Hines, T. M. (1990). An odd effect: Lengthened reaction times for judgments about odd digits. Memory & Cognition, 18(1), 40–46.CrossRef

Keus, I. M., Jenks, K. M., & Schwarz, W. (2005). Psychophysiological evidence that the SNARC effect has its functional locus in a response selection stage. Cognitive Brain Research, 24(1), 48–56.CrossRefPubMed

Lindemann, O., Alipour, A., & Fischer, M. H. (2011). Finger counting habits in middle eastern and western individuals: an online survey. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42(4), 566–578.CrossRef

Loetscher, T., Bockisch, C. J., & Brugger, P. (2008). Looking for the answer: The mind’s eye in number space. Neuroscience, 151(3), 725–729.CrossRefPubMed

Loetscher, T., Bockisch, C. J., Nicholls, M. E., & Brugger, P. (2010). Eye position predicts what number you have in mind. Current Biology, 20(6), R264–R265.CrossRef

Loetscher, T., Schwarz, U., Schubiger, M., & Brugger, P. (2008). Head turns bias the brain’s internal random generator. Current Biology, 18(2), R60–R62.CrossRef

Macnamara, A., Keage, H. A., & Loetscher, T. (2018). Mapping of non-numerical domains on space: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Experimental Brain Research, 236, 335–346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-017-5154-6.CrossRefPubMed

Mock, J., Huber, S., Klein, E., & Moeller, K. (2016). Insights into numerical cognition: Considering eye-fixations in number processing and arithmetic. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 80(3), 334–359.CrossRefPubMed

Myachykov, A., Cangelosi, A., Ellis, R., & Fischer, M. H. (2015). The oculomotor resonance effect in spatial–numerical mapping. Actapsychologica, 161, 162–169.

Myachykov, A., Ellis, R., Cangelosi, A., & Fischer, M. H. (2016). Ocular drift along the mental number line. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 80(3), 379–388.CrossRefPubMed

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 Section A, 57(5), 835–863.CrossRef

Nuerk, H. C., Wood, G., & Willmes, K. (2005). The universal SNARC effect: The association between number magnitude and space is amodal. Experimental Psychology, 52(3), 187–194.CrossRefPubMed

Roettger, T. B., & Domahs, F. (2015). Grammatical number elicits SNARC and MARC effects as a function of task demands. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68(6), 1231–1248.CrossRefPubMed

Rugani, R., & de Hevia, M. D. (2017). Number-space associations without language: Evidence from preverbal human infants and non-human animal species. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 24(2), 352–369.CrossRef

Schwarz, W., & Keus, I. M. (2004). Moving the eyes along the mental number line: Comparing SNARC effects with saccadic and manual responses. Perception & Psychophysics, 66(4), 651–664.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

van Dijck, J. P., Abrahamse, E. L., Acar, F., Ketels, B., & Fias, W. (2014). A working memory account of the interaction between numbers and spatial attention. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67(8), 1500–1513.CrossRefPubMed

Viarouge, A., Hubbard, E. M., & McCandliss, B. D. (2014). The cognitive mechanisms of the SNARC effect: An individual differences approach. PLoS ONE, 9(4), e95756. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0095756.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Wood, G., Nuerk, H. C., & Willmes, K. (2006). Crossed Hands and the Snarc Effect: A failure to Replicate Dehaene, Bossini and Giraux (1993). Cortex, 42(8), 1069–1079.CrossRefPubMed

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.

Zebian, S. (2005). Linkages between number concepts, spatial thinking, and directionality of writing: The SNARC effect and the reverse SNARC effect in English and Arabic monoliterates, biliterates, and illiterate Arabic speakers. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 5(1), 165–190.CrossRef

Titel: Time dependency of the SNARC effect for different number formats: evidence from saccadic responses
Auteurs: Alexandra Pressigout
Agnès Charvillat
Karima Mersad
Karine Doré-Mazars
Publicatiedatum: 09-04-2018
Uitgeverij: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 7/2019
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-018-1010-y

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 7/2019

Judgements about double-embedded relative clauses differ between languages

The unimanual handle-to-hand correspondence effect: evidence for a location coding account

Spatial and frequency specificity of the ventriloquism aftereffect revisited

Training and transfer effects of interference control training in children and young adults

Individual differences influence two-digit number processing, but not their analog magnitude processing: a large-scale online study

The impact of temporal contingencies between cue and target onset on spatial attentional capture by subliminal onset cues