Top

Gepubliceerd in:

10-08-2020 | Original Article

Reading direction and spatial effects in parity and arithmetic tasks

Auteurs: Maham Azhar, Yalin Chen, Jamie I. D. Campbell

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 6/2021

Abstract

This study investigated the relationship between numerical and spatial processing and reading direction, conducting conceptual replications of the Shaki et al. (Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 16(2): 328–331, 2009) parity task and the Mathieu et al. (Cognition 146: 229–239, 2016, Experiment 1) simple addition (e.g., 3 + 2) and subtraction (e.g., 3 − 2) task. Twenty-four left-to-right readers (LTR) and 24 right-to-left readers (RTL) were tested. The response time (RT) analysis of the parity task presented a robust spatial-numerical association of response codes (SNARC) effect (left-side response advantage for smaller numbers and right-side advantage for larger numbers) for LTR but not RTL readers. In the arithmetic task, the three problem elements (e.g., 3 + 4) were presented sequentially with the second operand displaced slightly to the left or right of fixation. RTL but not LTR readers presented a RT advantage for subtraction relative to addition with a right-shifted second operand compared to it being left-shifted. This is consistent with a spatial bias linked to native reading direction. For both reading-direction groups, effects of the left vs. right side manipulation in the arithmetic or parity task did not correspond to parallel effects in the other task. The results imply that the parity-based SNARC effects and side-related effects in cognitive arithmetic are not equivalent measures of space-related processes in cognitive number processing and likely reflect distinct mechanisms.

vorige artikel Systematic spatial distortion of quantitative estimates

volgende artikel Response orientation modulates pitch–space relationships: the ROMPR effect

Jérôme Prado confirmed (25/11/2019) that Fig. 1 in Mathieu, et al. (2016) correctly depicted the trial procedure.

The size factor in the arithmetic task participated in several interactions not related to O2 position (see supplemental materials), including an Operation × Size × Format × Group interaction) [F(1, 46) = 9.69, p = 0.003, MSE = 12,623, \( \eta_{\text{p}}^{2} \) = 0.17, BF₁₀ = 14.20]. We mention this interaction in particular because it reflected especially slow subtraction for RTL readers with larger Indic stimuli. This seems to parallel the difficulty that the RTL group had with large Indic numerals in the parity task. As this finding is not material to the O2-position manipulation we did not pursue it here.

The dRT convention for the parity (i.e., SNARC) task is the opposite; that is the left-side RT is subtracted from right-side RT (e.g., Shaki et al., 2009, p. 330).

There were no significant effects in the corresponding ANOVA of large problems (see the supplementary documentation).

Abrahamse, E., van Dijck, J.-P., & Fias, W. (2016). How does working memory enable number-induced spatial biases? Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 977. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00977.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Afsari, Z., Ossandón, J. P., & König, (2016). The dynamic effect of reading direction habit on spatial asymmetry of image perception. Journal of Vision, 16, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1167/16.11.8.CrossRef

Blini, E., Pitteri, M., & Zorzi, M. (2019). Spatial grounding of symbolic arithmetic: an investigation with optokinetic stimulation. Psychological Research, 83(1), 64–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-018-1053-0.CrossRefPubMed

Campbell, J. I. D. (1994). Architectures for numerical cognition. Cognition, 53, 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(94)90075-2.CrossRefPubMed

Campbell, J. I. D., & Alberts, N. M. (2009). Operation-specific effects of numerical surface form on arithmetic strategy. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 999–1011. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015829.CrossRefPubMed

Campbell, J. I. D., Chen, Y., & Azhar, M. (2020). Not toeing the number line for simple arithmetic: Two large-n conceptual replications of Mathieu et al. (Cognition, 2016, Experiment 1). Numerical Cognition, accepted 13/2/2020.

Campbell, J. I. D., & Epp, L. J. (2004). An encoding-complex approach to numerical cognition in Chinese-English bilinguals. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58, 229–244. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0087447.CrossRefPubMed

Campbell, J. I. D., & Fugelsang, J. (2001). Strategy choice for arithmetic verification: Effects of numerical surface form. Cognition, 80, B21–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(01)00115-9.CrossRefPubMed

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

Casarotti, M., Michielin, M., Zorzi, M., & Umiltà, C. (2007). Temporal order judgment reveals how number magnitude affects visuospatial attention. Cognition, 102(1), 101–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2006.09.001.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

Fias, W. & Bonato, M. (2018). Which space for numbers. In Henik, A. & Fias, W. (Eds.), Heterogeneity of Function in Numerical Cognition (pp. 233-242). https://doi.org/https://10.1016/b978-0-12-811529-9.00002-9.

Fias, W., & Van Dijck, J. (2016). The temporary nature of number—space interactions. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale, 70(1), 33–40. https://doi.org/10.1037/cep0000071.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. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1066.CrossRefPubMed

Fischer, M. H., & Shaki, S. (2018). Number concepts: Abstract and embodied. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 373(1752), 20170125. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2017.0125.CrossRef

Hartmann, M., Mast, F. W., & Fischer, M. H. (2015). Counting is a spatial process: Evidence from eye movements. Psychological Research, 80(3), 399–409. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-015-0722-5.CrossRefPubMed

Hung, Y.-H., Hung, D. L., Tzeng, O. J.-L., & Wu, D. H. (2008). Flexible spatial mapping of different notations of numbers in Chinese readers. Cognition, 106, 1441–1450.CrossRefPubMed

Ito, Y., & Hatta, T. (2004). Spatial structure of quantitative representation of numbers: Evidence from the SNARC effect. Memory & Cognition, 32(4), 662–673. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03195857.CrossRef

Jarosz, A. F., & Wiley, J. (2014). What are the odds? A practical guide to computing and reporting Bayes factors. The Journal of Problem Solving, 7, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.7771/1932-6246.1167.CrossRef

Knops, A. (2018). Neurocognitive evidence for spatial contributions to numerical cognition. In A. Henik & W. Fias (Eds.), Heterogeneity of Function in Numerical Cognition (pp. 211–232). Cambridge: Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-811529-9.00011-X.CrossRef

Li, M., Liu, D., Li, M., Dong, W., Huang, Y., & Chen, Q. (2018). Addition and subtraction but not multiplication and division cause shifts of spatial attention. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2018.00183.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Liu, D., Cai, D., Verguts, T., & Chen, Q. (2017). The time course of spatial attention shifts in elementary arithmetic. Scientific Reports. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-01037-3.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Masson, M. E. J. (2011). A tutorial on a practical Bayesian alternative to null-hypothesis significance testing. Behavioral Research Methods, 43, 679–690. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-010-0049-5.CrossRef

Masson, N., & Pesenti, M. (2014). Attentional bias induced by solving simple and complex addition and subtraction problems. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67(8), 1514–1526. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2014.903985.CrossRef

Mathieu, R., Epinat-Duclos, J., Léone, J., Fayol, M., Thevenot, C., & Prado, J. (2018). Hippocampal spatial mechanisms relate to the development of arithmetic symbol processing in children. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 30, 324–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2017.06.001.CrossRefPubMed

Mathieu, R., Epinat-Duclos, J., Sigovan, M., Breton, A., Cheylus, A., Fayol, M., & Prado, J. (2017). What’s behind a “+” sign? Perceiving an arithmetic operator recruits brain circuits for spatial orienting. Cerebral Cortex, 28(5), 1673–1684. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhx064.CrossRef

Mathieu, R., Gourjon, A., Couderc, A., Thevenot, C., & Prado, J. (2016). Running the number line: Rapid shifts of attention in single-digit arithmetic. Cognition, 146, 229–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2015.10.002.CrossRefPubMed

McCrink, K., Dehaene, S., & Dehaene-Lambertz, G. (2007). Moving along the number line: Operational momentum in nonsymbolic arithmetic. Perception & Psychophysics, 69(8), 1324–1333. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03192949.CrossRef

Nathoo, F. S., & Masson, M. E. J. (2016). Bayesian alternatives to null-hypothesis significance testing for repeated-measures designs. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 72, 144–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmp.2015.03.003.CrossRef

Pinhas, M., & Fischer, M. H. (2008). Mental movements without magnitude? A study of spatial biases in symbolic arithmetic. Cognition, 109, 408–415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2008.09.003.CrossRefPubMed

Pinhas, M., Shaki, S., & Fischer, M. H. (2015). Addition goes where the big numbers are: evidence for a reversed operational momentum effect. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22, 993–1000. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-014-0786-z.CrossRef

Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2012). E-Prime user’s guide. Pittsburgh: Psychology Software Tools Inc.

Seyler, D. J., Kirk, E. P., & Ashcraft, M. H. (2003). Elementary subtraction. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 1339–1352.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., Pinhas, M., & Fischer, M. H. (2018). Heuristics and biases in mental arithmetic: revisiting and reversing operational momentum. Thinking & Reasoning, 24(2), 138–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2017.1348987.CrossRef

Spalek, T. M., & Hammad, S. (2005). The left-to-light bias in inhibition of return is due to the direction of reading. Psychological Science, 16, 15–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.00774.x.CrossRefPubMed

The jamovi project. (2020). jamovi. (Version 1.2) https://www.jamovi.org.

Viarouge, A., Hubbard, E. M., & Dehaene, S. (2014). The organization of spatial reference frames involved in the SNARC effect. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67, 1484–1499. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2014.897358.CrossRef

Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2007). A practical solution to the pervasive problems of p values. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 779–804. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194105.CrossRef

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

Wiemers, M., Bekkering, H., & Lindemann, O. (2014). Spatial interferences in mental arithmetic: Evidence from the motion-arithmetic compatibility effect. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67, 1557–1570. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2014.889180.CrossRefPubMed

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, 165–190. https://doi.org/10.1163/1568537054068660.CrossRef

Zhu, R., You, X., Gan, S., & Wang, J. (2019). Spatial attentions shifts in addition and subtraction arithmetic: evidence of eye movement. Perception, 48, 835–849. https://doi.org/10.1177/0301006619865156.CrossRefPubMed

Zohar-Shai, B., Tzelgov, J., Karrni, 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, 719–728. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000336.CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Reading direction and spatial effects in parity and arithmetic tasks
Auteurs: Maham Azhar
Yalin Chen
Jamie I. D. Campbell
Publicatiedatum: 10-08-2020
Uitgeverij: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 6/2021
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-020-01397-y

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 6/2021

Visual search in virtual 3D space: the relation of multiple targets and distractors

Training with high perceptual difficulty improves the capacity and fidelity of internal representation in VWM

From repeating routes to planning novel routes: the impact of landmarks and ageing on route integration and cognitive mapping

Eye movements of recent and remote autobiographical memories: fewer and longer lasting fixations during the retrieval of childhood memories

How do task characteristics affect learning and performance? The roles of simultaneous, interactive, and continuous tasks

Effects of state anxiety on gait: a 7.5% carbon dioxide challenge study