Top

Gepubliceerd in:

13-04-2021 | Original Article

Two processing stages of the SNARC effect

Auteurs: Weizhi Nan, Lizhu Yan, Guochun Yang, Xun Liu, Shimin Fu

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 2/2022

Abstract

The spatial–numerical association of response codes (SNARC) effect showed that small/large numbers represented in the left/right space facilitated left/right responses, respectively. However, the processing stage (semantic representation or response selection) of the SNARC effect is still controversial. To investigate this issue, we adopted a modified magnitude comparison task in which the effects of SNARC, Stroop (semantic-representation stage), and Simon (response-selection stage) could be simultaneously induced. The processing stages of the SNARC effect were investigated by examining the interactions among these effects. According to the additive factor logic, if two effects are interactive, then they occur in the same stage; if two effects are additive, then they occur in different stages. Across two experiments, the SNARC effect interacted with the Stroop effect and with the Simon effect. These results suggested that the SNARC effect occurred in both the semantic-representation and response-selection stages and provided insight into that the SNARC effect might have two originating sources.

vorige artikel Space, time and number: common coding mechanisms and interactions between domains

volgende artikel Nonsymbolic and symbolic representations of null numerosity

Abad, E. V., Scheffers, M. K., Coles, M. G. H., Fournier, L., & Adamson, A. (1997). The dimensionality of the flanker compatibility effect: a psychophysiological analysis. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 60(3), 144–155.PubMed

Ansorge, U., & Wühr, P. (2004). A response-discrimination account of the Simon effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30(2), 365.PubMed

Basso Moro, S., Dell’Acqua, R., & Cutini, S. (2018). The SNARC effect is not a unitary phenomenon. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25(2), 688–695.

Chen, A., Bailey, K., Tiernan, B. N., & West, R. (2011). Neural correlates of stimulus and response interference in a 2–1 mapping stroop task. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 80, 129–138.PubMed

Cutini, S., Scarpa, F., Scatturin, P., DellAcqua, R., & Zorzi, M. (2014). Number-space interactions in the human parietal cortex: enlightening the SNARC effect with functional near-infrared spectroscopy. Cerebral Cortex, 24(2), 444–451.PubMed

Daar, M., & Pratt, J. (2008). Digits affect actions: the SNARC effect and response selection. Cortex, 44(4), 400–405.PubMed

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.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.

Egner, T. (2008). Multiple conflict-driven control mechanisms in the human brain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12(10), 374–380.PubMed

Fischer, M. H., & Shaki, S. (2014). Spatial associations in numerical cognition–from single digits to arithmetic. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67(8), 1461–1483.

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

Fitousi, D., & Algom, D. (2020). A model for two-digit number processing based on a joint Garner and system factorial technology analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 149(4), 676–700.

Gevers, W., Caessens, B., & Fias, W. (2005). Towards a common processing architecture underlying Simon and SNARC effects. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 17(5), 659–673.

Hock, H. S., & Egeth, H. (1970). Verbal interference with encoding in a perceptual classification task. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 83(2), 299–303.PubMed

Houwer, J. (2003). On the role of stimulus–response and stimulus–stimulus compatibility in the stroop effect. Memory & Cognition, 31(3), 353–359.

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.PubMed

Keus, I. M., & Schwarz, W. (2005). Searching for the functional locus of the SNARC effect: evidence for a response-related origin. Memory & Cognition, 33(4), 681–695.

Kornblum, H., & Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: cognitive basis for stimulus–response compatibility—a model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97(2), 253–270.PubMed

Kornblum, S. (1994). The way irrelevant dimensions are processed depends on what they overlap with: the case of Stroop- and Simon-like stimuli. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 56(3), 130–135.PubMed

Kornblum, S., & Lee, J. W. (1995). Stimulus–response compatibility with relevant and irrelevant stimulus dimensions that do and do not overlap with the response. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21(4), 855–875.PubMed

Leuthold, H. (2011). The Simon effect in cognitive electrophysiology: a short review. Acta Psychologica, 136(2), 203–211.PubMed

Li, Q., Nan, W., Wang, K., & Liu, X. (2014). Independent processing of stimulus-stimulus and stimulus-response conflicts. PLoS ONE, 9(2), e89249.PubMedPubMedCentral

Liu, X., Park, Y., Gu, X., & Fan, J. (2010). Dimensional overlap accounts for independence and integration of stimulus–response compatibility effects. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 72(6), 1710–1720.

MacLeod, C. M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: an integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 109(2), 163–203.PubMed

Mapelli, D., Rusconi, E., & Umiltà, C. (2003). The SNARC effect: an instance of the Simon effect? Cognition, 88(3), B1–B10.PubMed

Melara, R. D., Wang, H., Vu, K. P., & Proctor, R. W. (2008). Attentional origins of the Simon effect: behavioral and electrophysiological evidence. Brain Research, 1215, 147–159.PubMed

Nuerk, H. C., Kaufmann, L., Zoppoth, S., & Willmes, K. (2004). On the development of the mental number line: more, less, or never holistic with increasing age? Developmental Psychology, 40(6), 1199–1211.PubMed

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, B25–B33.PubMed

Nuerk, H. C., Weger, U., & Willmes, K. (2002). A unit-decade compatibility effect in German number words. Current Psychology Letterss: Behaviour, Brain and Cognition, 2, 19–38.

Rusconi, E., Turatto, M., & Umilta, C. (2007). Two orienting mechanisms in posterior parietal lobule: an rTMS study of the Simon and SNARC effects. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 24(4), 373–392.PubMed

Scerrati, E., Lugli, L., Nicoletti, R., & Umilta, C. (2017). Comparing Stroop-like and Simon effects on perceptual features. Scientific Reports, 7(1), 17815.PubMedPubMedCentral

Shepard, R. N., & Metzler, J. (1971). Mental rotation of three-dimensional objects. Science, 171(3972), 701–703.PubMed

Simon, J. R., & Berbaum, K. (1990). Effect of conflicting cues on information processing: the ‘Stroop effect’ vs the ‘Simon effect.’ Acta Psychologica, 73(2), 159–170.PubMed

Sternberg, S. (1969). The discovery of processing stages extensions of Donders’ method. Acta Psychologica, 30, 276–315.

Tlauka, M. (2002). The processing of numbers in choice-reaction tasks. Australian Psychological Society, 54(2), 94–98.

Treccani, B., Milanese, N., & Umilta, C. (2010). Influence on Simon and SNARC effects of a nonspatial stimulus–response mapping: between-task logical recoding. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36(5), 1239–1254.PubMed

van Dijck, J. P., & Doricchi, F. (2019). Multiple left-to-right spatial representations of number magnitudes? Evidence from left spatial neglect. Experimental Brain Research, 237(4), 1031–1043.PubMed

van Dijck, J. P., & Fias, W. (2011). A working memory account for spatial–numerical associations. Cognition, 119(1), 114–119.PubMed

van Veen, V., Cohen, J. D., Botvinick, M. M., Stenger, V. A., & Carter, C. S. (2001). Anterior cingulate cortex, conflict monitoring, and levels of processing. NeuroImage, 14(6), 1302–1308.PubMed

Wang, K., Li, Q., Zheng, Y., Wang, H., & Liu, X. (2014). Temporal and spectral profiles of stimulus–stimulus and stimulus–response conflict processing. NeuroImage, 89, 280–288.PubMed

Wascher, E., Schatz, U., Kuder, T., & Verleger, R. (2001). Validity and boundary conditions of automatic response activation in the Simon task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27(3), 731–751.PubMed

Wiegand, K., & Wascher, E. (2005). Dynamic aspects of stimulus–response correspondence: evidence for two mechanisms involved in the Simon effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31(3), 453–464.PubMed

Wiegand, K., & Wascher, E. (2007a). Response coding in the Simon task. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 71(4), 401–410.PubMed

Wiegand, K., & Wascher, E. (2007b). The Simon effect for vertical S-R relations: changing the mechanism by randomly varying the S–R mapping rule? Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 71(2), 219–233.PubMed

Yan, L., Yang, G., Nan, W., Liu, X., & Fu, S. (2021). The SNARC effect occurs in the response-selection stage. Acta Psychol (Amst), 215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2021.103292.CrossRef

Yang, G., Nan, W., Li, Q., & Liu, X. (2015). Behavioral and electrophysiological profiles reveal domain-specific conflict processing. Advances in Computational Psychophysiology, 350(6256), 33–34.

Yang, G., Nan, W., Zheng, Y., Wu, H., Li, Q., & Liu, X. (2017). Distinct cognitive control mechanisms as revealed by modality-specific conflict adaptation effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 43(4), 807–818.PubMed

Zhang, H. H., Zhang, J., & Kornblum, S. (1999). A parallel distributed processing model of stimulus-stimulus and stimulus-response compatibility. Cognitive Psychology, 38(3), 386–432.PubMed

Zhou, X., Chen, C., Chen, L., & Dong, Q. (2008). Holistic or compositional representation of two-digit numbers? Evidence from the distance, magnitude, and SNARC effects in a number-matching task. Cognition, 106(3), 1525–1536.PubMed

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.PubMed

Titel: Two processing stages of the SNARC effect
Auteurs: Weizhi Nan
Lizhu Yan
Guochun Yang
Xun Liu
Shimin Fu
Publicatiedatum: 13-04-2021
Uitgeverij: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 2/2022
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-021-01506-5

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 2/2022

What factors underlie our experience of the passage of time? Theoretical consequences

Cultural differences in vocal emotion recognition: a behavioural and skin conductance study in Portugal and Guinea-Bissau

Partial repetition between action plans delays responses to ideomotor compatible stimuli

What factors influence the switch from unitary to divided attention?

The different roles of sleep on false memory formation between young and older adults

Reduced flexibility of cognitive control: reactive, but not proactive control, underpins the congruency sequence effect