Top

Gepubliceerd in:

16-07-2018 | Original Article

Task instructions modulate unit–decade binding in two-digit number representation

Auteurs: Thomas J. Faulkenberry, Alexander Cruise, Samuel Shaki

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 2/2020

Abstract

Previous studies have found decomposed processes, as well as holistic processes, in the representation of two-digit numbers. The present study investigated the influence of task instruction on such processes. Participants completed both magnitude and parity tasks in one of three instructional conditions, where they were asked to either consider two-digit numbers as a whole or to focus on one specific digit. In two experiments, we found that when participants were asked to consider the two digits as an integrated number, they always exhibited a unit–decade compatibility effect, indicating a failure of selective attention on the digit relevant to the given task. However, the mere presence of the neighboring digit is not a sufficient condition for the compatibility effect: when participants were explicitly asked to process a specific digit, their success/failure to selectively ignore the irrelevant digit depended on task requirements. Further, computer mouse tracking indicated that the locus of the compatibility effect was related to late response-related processing. The results signify the deep involvement of top-down processes in unit–decade binding for two-digit number representation.

vorige artikel Volitional media multitasking: awareness of performance costs and modulation of media multitasking as a function of task demand

volgende artikel Individual differences in processing resources modulate bimanual interference in pointing

Castronovo, J., & Crollen, V. (2011). Numerical comparison of two-digit numbers: How differences at encoding can involve differences in processing. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 23(1), 8–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2011.445985.CrossRef

Cohen-Kdoshay, O., & Meiran, N. (2007). The representation of instructions in working memory leads to autonomous response activation: Evidence from the first trials in the flanker paradigm. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60(8), 1140–1154. https://doi.org/10.1080/1747021060089674.CrossRefPubMed

De Jong, R., Liang, C.-C., & Lauber, E. (1994). Conditional and unconditional automaticity: A dual-process model of effects of spatial stimulus–response correspondence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20(4), 731–750. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.20.4.731.CrossRefPubMed

Dehaene, S., Dupoux, E., & Mehler, J. (1990). Is numerical comparison digital? Analogical and symbolic effects in two-digit number comparison. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 16(3), 626–641. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.16.3.626.CrossRefPubMed

DeWolf, M., Grounds, M. A., Bassok, M., & Holyoak, K. J. (2014). Magnitude comparison with different types of rational numbers. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 40(1), 71–82. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032916.CrossRefPubMed

Dotan, D., & Dehaene, S. (2013). How do we convert a number into a finger trajectory? Cognition, 129(3), 512–529. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.07.007.CrossRefPubMed

Erb, C. D., Moher, J., Sobel, D. M., & Song, J.-H. (2016). Reach tracking reveals dissociable processes underlying cognitive control. Cognition, 152, 114–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2016.03.015.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Faulkenberry, T. J. (2014). Hand movements reflect competitive processing in numerical cognition. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68(3), 147–151. https://doi.org/10.1037/cep0000021.CrossRefPubMed

Faulkenberry, T. J. (2016). Testing a direct mapping versus competition account of response dynamics in number comparison. Journal of Cognitive Psychology,. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2016.1191504.CrossRef

Faulkenberry, T. J., Cruise, A., & Shaki, S. (2017). Reversing the manual digit bias in two-digit number comparison. Experimental Psychology, 64(3), 191–204. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000365.CrossRefPubMed

Faulkenberry, T. J., Cruise, A., Lavro, D., & Shaki, S. (2016). Response trajectories capture the continuous dynamics of the size congruity effect. Acta Psychologica, 163, 114–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2015.11.010.CrossRefPubMed

Faulkenberry, T. J., Hartmann, M., & Witte, M. (2018). Tracking the continuous dynamics of numerical processing: A brief review and editorial. Journal of Numerical Cognition. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/pruz7 CrossRef

Faulkenberry, T. J., Montgomery, S. A., & Tennes, S.-A. N. (2015). Response trajectories reveal the temporal dynamics of fraction representations. Acta Psychologica, 159, 100–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2015.05.013.CrossRefPubMed

Fischer, M. H., & Hartmann, M. (2014). Pushing forward in embodied cognition: May we mouse the mathematical mind? Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1315. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01315.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Freeman, J. B., & Ambady, N. (2009). Motions of the hand expose the partial and parallel activation of stereotypes. Psychological Science, 20(10), 1183–1188. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02422.x.CrossRefPubMed

Freeman, J. B., & Ambady, N. (2010). MouseTracker: Software for studying real-time mental processing using a computer mouse-tracking method. Behavior Research Methods, 42(1), 226–241. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.42.1.226.CrossRefPubMed

Freeman, J. B., Dale, R., & Farmer, T. A. (2011). Hand in motion reveals mind in motion. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 59. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00059.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Ganor-Stern, D., Tzelgov, J., & Ellenbogen, R. (2007). Automaticity and two-digit numbers. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33(2), 483–496. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.33.2.483.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

Herrera, A., Macizo, P., & Semenza, C. (2008). The role of working memory in the association between number magnitude and space. Acta Psychologica, 128(2), 225–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2008.01.002.CrossRefPubMed

Hinrichs, J. V., Yurko, D. S., & Hu, J.-M. (1981). Two-digit number comparison: Use of place information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 7(4), 890–901. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.7.4.890.CrossRef

Kallai, A. Y., & Tzelgov, J. (2012). The place-value of a digit in multi-digit numbers is processed automatically. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38(5), 1221–1233. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027635.CrossRefPubMed

Kiesel, A., Steinhauser, M., Wendt, M., Falkenstein, M., Jost, K., Philipp, A. M., et al. (2010). Control and interference in task switching: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 136(5), 849.CrossRef

Klein, E., Bahnmueller, J., Mann, A., Pixner, S., Kaufmann, L., Nuerk, H.-C., et al. (2013). Language influences on numerical development Inversion effects on multi-digit number processing. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 480. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00480.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., & Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility—a model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97(2), 253–270. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.97.2.253.CrossRefPubMed

Liefooghe, B., De Houwer, J., & Wenke, D. (2013). Instruction-based response activation depends on task preparation. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 20(3), 481–487. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-013-0374-7.CrossRefPubMed

Logan, G. D., Taylor, S. E., & Etherton, J. L. (1996). Attention in the acquisition and expression of automaticity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22(3), 620–638. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.22.3.620.CrossRef

Macizo, P., & Herrera, A. (2011). Cognitive control in number processing: Evidence from the unit–decade compatibility effect. Acta Psychologica, 136(1), 112–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.008.CrossRefPubMed

Macizo, P., Herrera, A., Paolieri, D., & Román, P. (2010). Is there cross-language modulation when bilinguals process number words? Applied Psycholinguistics, 31(04), 651–669. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0142716410000184.CrossRef

Moeller, K., Klein, E., Nuerk, H.-C., & Willmes, K. (2013). Magnitude representation in sequential comparison of two-digit numbers is not holistic either. Cognitive Processing, 14(1), 51–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-012-0535-z.CrossRefPubMed

Moeller, K., Nuerk, H.-C., & Willmes, K. (2009). Internal number magnitude representation is not holistic, either. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 21(5), 672–685. https://doi.org/10.1080/09541440802311899.CrossRef

Morey, R. D. (2008). Confidence intervals from normalized data: A correction to cousineau (2005). Tutorial in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 4(2), 61–64.CrossRef

Moyer, R. S., & Landauer, T. K. (1967). Time required for judgements of numerical inequality. Nature, 215(5109), 1519–1520. https://doi.org/10.1038/2151519a0.CrossRefPubMed

Mussolin, C., & Noël, M.-P. (2008). Automaticity for numerical magnitude of two-digit arabic numbers in children. Acta Psychologica, 129(2), 264–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2008.08.001.CrossRefPubMed

Nuerk, H.-C., & Willmes, K. (2005). On the magnitude representations of two-digit numbers. Psychology Science, 47(1), 52–72.

Nuerk, H.-C., Bauer, F., Krummenacher, J., Heller, D., & Willmes, K. (2005). The power of the mental number line: How the magnitude of unattended numbers affects performance in an eriksen task. Psychology Science, 47(1), 34–50.

Nuerk, H.-C., Moeller, K., & Willmes, K. (2014). Multi-digit number processing. In R. Cohen Kadosh & A. Dowker (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of numerical cognition (pp. 106–139). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199642342.013.021 CrossRef

Nuerk, H.-C., Moeller, K., Klein, E., Willmes, K., & Fischer, M. H. (2011). Extending the mental number line. Zeitschrift Für Psychologie, 219(1), 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000041.CrossRef

Nuerk, H.-C., Weger, U., & Willmes, K. (2001). Decade breaks in the mental number line? Putting the tens and units back in different bins. Cognition, 82(1), B25–B33. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0010-0277(01)00142-1.CrossRefPubMed

Nuerk, H.-C., Weger, U., & Willmes, K. (2005). Language effects in magnitude comparison: Small, but not irrelevant. Brain and Language, 92(3), 262–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2004.06.107.CrossRefPubMed

Ratinckx, E., Brysbaert, M., & Fias, W. (2005). Naming two-digit arabic numerals: Evidence from masked priming studies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31(5), 1150–1163. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.31.5.1150.CrossRefPubMed

Reynvoet, B., Notebaert, K., & Van den Bussche, E. (2011). The processing of two-digit numbers depends on task instructions. Zeitschrift Für Psychologie, 219(1), 37–41. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000044.CrossRef

Ruitenberg, M. F. L., Duthoo, W., Santens, P., Seidler, R. D., Notebaert, W., & Abrahamse, E. L. (2016). Sequence learning in parkinson’s disease: Focusing on action dynamics and the role of dopaminergic medication. Neuropsychologia, 93, 30–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2016.09.027.CrossRefPubMed

Santens, S., Goossens, S., & Verguts, T. (2011). Distance in motion: Response trajectories reveal the dynamics of number comparison. PloS One, 6(9), e25429. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0025429.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Sobel, K. V., Puri, A. M., & Faulkenberry, T. J. (2016). Bottom-up and top-down attentional contributions to the size congruity effect. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 78(5), 1324–1336. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-016-1098-3.CrossRef

Sobel, K. V., Puri, A. M., Faulkenberry, T. J., & Dague, T. D. (2017). Visual search for conjunctions of physical and numerical size shows that they are processed independently. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 43(3), 444–453. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000323.CrossRefPubMed

Song, J.-H., & Nakayama, K. (2008). Numeric comparison in a visually-guided manual reaching task. Cognition, 106(2), 994–1003. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.03.014.CrossRefPubMed

Spivey, M. J., Grosjean, M., & Knoblich, G. (2005). Continuous attraction toward phonological competitors. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102(29), 10393–10398. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0503903102.CrossRef

Steinborn, M. B., Langner, R., & Huestegge, L. (2017). Mobilizing cognition for speeded action: Try-harder instructions promote motivated readiness in the constant-foreperiod paradigm. Psychological Research, 81(6), 1135–1151. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-016-0810-1.CrossRefPubMed

Strauss, S., Woodgate, P. J., Sami, S. A., & Heinke, D. (2015). Choice reaching with a LEGO arm robot (CoRLEGO): The motor system guides visual attention to movement-relevant information. Neural Networks, 72, 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neunet.2015.10.005.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

van Dijck, J.-P., Gevers, W., & Fias, W. (2009). Numbers are associated with different types of spatial information depending on the task. Cognition, 113(2), 248–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2009.08.005.CrossRefPubMed

Vandierendonck, A., Liefooghe, B., & Verbruggen, F. (2010). Task switching: Interplay of reconfiguration and interference control. Psychological Bulletin, 136(4), 601–626. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019791.CrossRefPubMed

Verguts, T., & De Moor, W. (2005). Two-digit comparison: Decomposed, holistic, or hybrid? Experimental Psychology, 52(3), 195–200. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169.52.3.195.CrossRefPubMed

Wenke, D., & Frensch, P. A. (2005). The influence of task instruction on action coding: Constraint setting or direct coding? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31(4), 803–819. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.31.4.803.CrossRefPubMed

Wenke, D., Gaschler, R., & Nattkemper, D. (2005). Instruction-induced feature binding. Psychological Research, 71(1), 92–106. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-005-0038-y.CrossRefPubMed

Zorzi, M., & Umiltà, C. (1995). A computational model of the Simon effect. Psychological Research, 58(3), 193–205. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00419634.CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Task instructions modulate unit–decade binding in two-digit number representation
Auteurs: Thomas J. Faulkenberry
Alexander Cruise
Samuel Shaki
Publicatiedatum: 16-07-2018
Uitgeverij: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 2/2020
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-018-1057-9

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 2/2020

Training and transfer effects of extensive task-switching training in students

Performance-informed EEG analysis reveals mixed evidence for EEG signatures unique to the processing of time

Event segmentation and the temporal compression of experience in episodic memory

The influence of conceptual (mis)match on collaborative referring in dialogue

The Indo-Arabic distance effect originates in the response statistics of the task

Beholders’ sensorimotor engagement enhances aesthetic rating of pictorial facial expressions of pain