Top

Gepubliceerd in:

20-07-2019 | Original Article

Low numbers from a low head? Effects of observed head orientation on numerical cognition

Auteurs: Felix J. Götz, Anne Böckler, Andreas B. Eder

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 8/2020

Abstract

The present research shows effects of observed vertical head orientation of another person on numerical cognition in the observer. Participants saw portrait-like photographs of persons from a frontal view with gaze being directed at the camera and the head being tilted up or down (vs. not tilted). The photograph appeared immediately before each trial in different numerical cognition tasks. In Experiment 1, participants produced smaller numbers in a random number generation task after having viewed persons with a down-tilted head orientation relative to up-tilted and non-tilted head orientations. In Experiment 2, numerical estimates in an anchoring-like trivia question task were smaller following presentations of persons with a down-tilted head orientation relative to a non-tilted head orientation. In Experiment 3, a response key that was associated with larger numbers in a numerical magnitude task was pressed less frequently in a randomly intermixed free choice task when the photograph showed a person with a down-tilted relative to an up-tilted head orientation. These findings consistently show that social displays can influence numerical cognition across a variety of task settings.

vorige artikel Age-related differentiation in verbal and visuospatial working memory processing in childhood

volgende artikel The brightness dimension as a marker of gender across cultures and age

The preliminary test of the material is provided at: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/RTKDP.

As a manipulation check for the level of elaboration the mean response latencies for all participants were calculated and submitted to an independent-samples t test. Participants instructed to respond conscientiously (M = 17,949 ms ± SD = 7,696 ms) took significantly more time to come up with an estimate than participants instructed to respond spontaneously (M = 13,996 ms ± SD = 4,638 ms), t(81) = − 2.789, p = .007, d_s = 0.62. Thus, the instructions significantly affected response latencies.

Baddeley, A. D. (1966). The capacity for generating information by randomization. The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology, 18(2), 119–129.PubMed

Bahnik, S., & Strack, F. (2016). Overlap of accessible information undermines the anchoring effect. Judgment and Decision Making, 11(1), 92–98.

Banks, W. P., & Hill, D. K. (1974). The apparent magnitude of number scaled by random production. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 102(2), 353.

Baron-Cohen, S. (1992). How to build a baby that can read minds: Cognitive mechanisms in mindreading. In S. Baron-Cohend (Ed.), The maladapted mind: Classic readings in evolutionary psychopathology (pp. 207–239). East Sussex: Psychology Press.

Baron-Cohen, S. (1995). Mindblindness: An essay on autism and theory of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Böckler, A., Knoblich, G., & Sebanz, N. (2011). Observing shared attention modulates gaze following. Cognition, 120(2), 292–298.PubMed

Brozzoli, C., Ishihara, M., Göbel, S. M., Salemme, R., Rossetti, Y., & Farnè, A. (2008). Touch perception reveals the dominance of spatial over digital representation of numbers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(14), 5644–5648.

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.

Csibra, G., & Gergely, G. (2009). Natural pedagogy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(4), 148–153.PubMed

De Houwer, J., Beckers, T., Vandorpe, S., & Custers, R. (2005). Further evidence for the role of mode-independent short-term associations in spatial Simon effects. Perception and Psychophysics, 67(4), 659–666.PubMed

Dehaene, S., Bossini, S., & Giraux, P. (1993). The mental representation of parity and number magnitude. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122(3), 371–396.

Dehaene, S., & Changeux, J. P. (1993). Development of elementary numerical abilities: A neuronal model. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 5(4), 390–407.PubMed

Driver, J., Davis, G., Ricciardelli, P., Kidd, P., Maxwell, E., & Baron-Cohen, S. (1999). Gaze perception triggers reflexive visuospatial orienting. Visual Cognition, 6(5), 509–540.

Eerland, A., Guadalupe, T. M., & Zwaan, R. A. (2011). Leaning to the left makes the Eiffel Tower seem smaller: Posture-modulated estimation. Psychological Science, 22(12), 1511–1514.PubMed

Erle, T. M., & Topolinski, S. (2017). The grounded nature of psychological perspective-taking. Journal of personality and social psychology, 112(5), 683.PubMed

Evans, F. J. (1978). Monitoring attention deployment by random number generation: An index to measure subjective randomness. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 12(1), 35–38.

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.PubMed

Fias, W., & Fischer, M. H. (2005). Spatial representation of number. In J. Campbell (Ed.), Handbook of mathematical cognition (pp. 43–54). London: Psychology Press.

Fischer, M. H. (2012). A hierarchical view of grounded, embodied, and situated numerical cognition. Cognitive processing, 13(1), 161–164.

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.PubMed

Fischer, M. H., & Shaki, S. (2016). Measuring spatial–numerical associations: Evidence for a purely conceptual link. Psychological Research, 80(1), 109–112.PubMed

Friesen, C. K., Moore, C., & Kingstone, A. (2005). Does gaze direction really trigger a reflexive shift of spatial attention? Brain and Cognition, 57, 66–69.PubMed

Frischen, A., Bayliss, A. P., & Tipper, S. P. (2007). Gaze cueing of attention: Visual attention, social cognition, and individual differences. Psychological Bulletin, 133(4), 694–724.PubMedPubMedCentral

Furnham, A., & Boo, H. C. (2011). A literature review of the anchoring effect. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 40(1), 35–42.

Gozli, D. G. (2017). Behaviour versus performance: The veiled commitment of experimental psychology. Theory & Psychology, 27(6), 741–758.

Grade, S., Badets, A., & Pesenti, M. (2017). Influence of finger and mouth action observation on random number generation: An instance of embodied cognition for abstract concepts. Psychological Research, 81(3), 538–548.PubMed

Grade, S., Lefèvre, N., & Pesenti, M. (2013). Influence of gaze observation on random number generation. Experimental Psychology, 60(2), 122–130.PubMed

Hartmann, M., Gashaj, V., Stahnke, A., & Mast, F. (2014). There is more than” more is up”: Hand and foot responses reverse the vertical association of number magnitudes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 40(4), 1401–1414.PubMed

Hartmann, M., Grabherr, L., & Mast, F. (2012). Moving along the mental number line: Interactions between whole-body motion and numerical cognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38(6), 1416–1427.PubMed

Hietanen, J. K. (1999). Does your gaze direction and head orientation shift my visual attention? NeuroReport, 10(16), 3443–3447.PubMed

Hietanen, J. K. (2002). Social attention orienting integrates visual information from head and body orientation. Psychological Research, 66(3), 174–179.PubMed

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.PubMed

Holmes, K. J., & Lourenco, S. F. (2012). Orienting numbers in mental space: Horizontal organization trumps vertical. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65(6), 1044–1051.PubMed

Hommel, B., Müsseler, J., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). The theory of event coding (TEC): A framework for perception and action planning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(5), 849–878.PubMed

Hubbard, E. M., Piazza, M., Pinel, P., & Dehaene, S. (2005). Interactions between number and space in parietal cortex. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 6(6), 435–448.PubMed

Ito, Y., & Hatta, T. (2004). Spatial structure of quantitative representation of numbers: Evidence from the SNARC effect. Memory & Cognition, 32(4), 662–673.

Knops, A., Thirion, B., Hubbard, E. M., Michel, V., & Dehaene, S. (2009). Recruitment of an area involved in eye movements during mental arithmetic. Science, 324(5934), 1583–1585.PubMed

Langner, O., Dotsch, R., Bijlstra, G., Wigboldus, D. H., Hawk, S. T., & Van Knippenberg, A. (2010). Presentation and validation of the Radboud Faces database. Cognition and Emotion, 24(8), 1377–1388.

Langton, S. R. (2000). The mutual influence of gaze and head orientation in the analysis of social attention direction. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Section A, 53(3), 825–845.

Langton, S. R., & Bruce, V. (1999). Reflexive visual orienting in response to the social attention of others. Visual Cognition, 6(5), 541–567.

Langton, S. R., & Bruce, V. (2000). You must see the point: Automatic processing of cues to the direction of social attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26(2), 747–757.PubMed

Langton, S. R., Watt, R. J., & Bruce, V. (2000). Do the eyes have it? Cues to the direction of social attention. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(2), 50–59.PubMed

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

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.PubMed

Loetscher, T., & Brugger, P. (2007). Exploring number space by random digit generation. Experimental Brain Research, 180(4), 655–665.PubMed

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

Loudwin, J., & Bannert, M. (2017). Facing pitch: Constructing associations between space and pitch leads to better estimation of musical intervals. Musicae Scientiae, 21(1), 26–40.

Moyer, R. S., & Landauer, T. K. (1967). Time required for judgements of numerical inequality. Nature, 215(5109), 1519–1520.PubMed

Myachykov, A., Scheepers, C., Fischer, M. H., & Kessler, K. (2014). TEST: A tropic, embodied, and situated theory of cognition. Topics in Cognitive Science, 6(3), 442–460.PubMed

Pecher, D., & Boot, I. (2011). Numbers in space: Differences between concrete and abstract situations. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 121.PubMedPubMedCentral

Perrett, D. I., & Emery, N. J. (1994). Understanding the intentions of others from visual signals: Neurophysiological evidence. Current Psychology of Cognition, 13(5), 683–694.

Perrett, D. I., Hietanen, J. K., Oram, M. W., & Benson, P. J. (1992). Organization and functions of cells responsive to faces in the temporal cortex. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 335(1273), 23–30.PubMed

Pomianowska, I., Germeys, F., Verfaillie, K., & Newell, F. N. (2012). The role of social cues in the deployment of spatial attention: Head-body relationships automatically activate directional spatial codes in a Simon task. Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience, 6, 4.PubMedPubMedCentral

Proctor, R. W., & Cho, Y. S. (2006). Polarity correspondence: A general principle for performance of speeded binary classification tasks. Psychological Bulletin, 132(3), 416–442.PubMed

Restle, F. (1970). Speed of adding and comparing numbers. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 83(2), 274–278.

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.PubMed

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

Senju, A., & Johnson, M. H. (2009). The eye contact effect: Mechanisms and development. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(3), 127–134.PubMed

Shaki, S., & Fischer, M. H. (2014). Random walks on the mental number line. Experimental Brain Research, 232(1), 43–49.PubMed

Shaki, S., & Fischer, M. H. (2018). Deconstructing spatial-numerical associations. Cognition, 175, 109–113.PubMed

Simmons, J. P., LeBoeuf, R. A., & Nelson, L. D. (2010). The effect of accuracy motivation on anchoring and adjustment: Do people adjust from provided anchors? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(6), 917–932.PubMed

Sixtus, E., Fischer, M. H., & Lindemann, O. (2017). Finger posing primes number comprehension. Cognitive Processing, 18(3), 237–248.PubMed

Sixtus, E., Lonnemann, J., Fischer, M. H., & Werner, K. (2019). Mental number representations in 2D space. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 172.PubMedPubMedCentral

Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.

Strack, F., & Deutsch, R. (2004). Reflective and impulsive determinants of social behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(3), 220–247.PubMed

Strack, F., & Mussweiler, T. (1997). Explaining the enigmatic anchoring effect: Mechanisms of selective accessibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(3), 437.

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131.PubMed

van der Wel, R. P., Welsh, T., & Böckler, A. (2018). Talking heads or talking eyes? Effects of head orientation and sudden onset gaze cues on attention capture. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 80(1), 1–6.

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.PubMed

Walsh, V. (2003). A theory of magnitude: common cortical metrics of time, space and quantity. Trends in cognitive sciences, 7(11), 483–488.PubMed

Wiemers, M., Bekkering, H., & Lindemann, O. (2017). Is more always up? Evidence for a preference of hand-based associations over vertical number mappings. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 29(5), 642–652.

Winter, B., & Matlock, T. (2013). More is up… and right: Random number generation along two axes. In M. Knauff, M. Pauen, N. Sebanz, & I. Wachsmuth (Eds.), Proceedings of the 35th annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 3789–3974). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.

Winter, B., Matlock, T., Shaki, S., & Fischer, M. H. (2015). Mental number space in three dimensions. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 57, 209–219.PubMed

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.PubMed

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 Quarterly, 50(4), 489–525.

Woodin, G., & Winter, B. (2018). Placing abstract concepts in space: quantity, time and emotional valence. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2169.PubMedPubMedCentral

Titel: Low numbers from a low head? Effects of observed head orientation on numerical cognition
Auteurs: Felix J. Götz
Anne Böckler
Andreas B. Eder
Publicatiedatum: 20-07-2019
Uitgeverij: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 8/2020
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-019-01221-2

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 8/2020

Execution-based and verbal code-based stimulus–response associations: proportion manipulations reveal conflict adaptation processes in item-specific priming

Active visuomotor interactions with virtual objects on touchscreens adhere to Weber’s law

Inattention and task switching performance: the role of predictability, working memory load and goal neglect

Cueing distraction: electrophysiological evidence for anticipatory active suppression of distractor location

Accent-induced stabilization of spontaneous auditory–motor synchronization

Investigating the mediating effect of working memory on intentional forgetting in dysphoria