Symbolic distance affects two processing loci in the number comparison task

Memory and Cognition

Volumn 33, Issue 5, 2005, Pages 913-926

  Oriet, Chris ^a   Tombu, Michael ^b   Jolicœur, Pierre ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF REGINA   (Canada)

^b YORK UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITÉ DE MONTRÉAL   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; AUDITORY STIMULATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; DECISION MAKING; HEARING; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; INFORMATION PROCESSING; LONG TERM MEMORY; MENTAL TASK; SEMANTICS; SYMBOLISM; TASK PERFORMANCE; DISTANCE PERCEPTION;

DISTANCE PERCEPTION; HUMANS; PITCH PERCEPTION; SYMBOLISM;

EID: 31344477305     PISSN: 0090502X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/BF03193085     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. ALLPORT, A., STYLES, E. A., & HSIEH, S. (1994). Shifting intentional set: Exploring the dynamic control of tasks. In C. Umiltà & M. Moscovitch (Eds.), Attention and performance XV: Conscious and nonconscious information processing (pp. 421-452). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, Bradford Books.
2. BANKS, W. P., FUJII, M., & KAYRA- STUART, F. (1976). Semantic congruity effects in comparative judgments of magnitudes of digits. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 2, 435-447.
3. BARKLEY, R. (1997). ADHD and the nature of self-control. New York: Guilford.
4. BRYSBAERT, M. (1995). Arabic number reading: On the nature of the numerical scale and the origin of phonological recoding. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 434-452.
5. CARRIER, L. M., & PASHLER, H. (1995). Attentional limits in memory retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 21, 1339-1348.
6. DEHAENE, S., & AKHAVEIN, R. (1995). Attention, automaticity, and levels of representation in number processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 21, 314-326.
7. DEHAENE, S., BOSSINI, S., & GIRAUX, P. (1993). The mental representation of parity and number magnitude. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122, 371-396.
8. FOX, L. A., SHOR, R. E., & STEINMAN, R. J. (1971). Semantic gradients and interference in naming color, spatial direction, and numerosity. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 91, 59-65.
9. HENIK, A., & TZELGOV, J. (1982). Is three greater than five: The relation between physical and semantic size in comparison tasks. Memory & Cognition, 10, 389-395.
10. HOMMEL, B. (1998). Automatic stimulus-response translation in dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 24, 1368-1384.
11. JERSILD, A. T. (1927). Mental set and shift. Archives of Psychology, 89, 5-82.
12. LOGAN, G. D., & SCHULKIND, M. D. (2000). Parallel memory retrieval in dual-task situations: I. Semantic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 26, 1072-1090.
13. MCCANN, R. S., & JOHNSTON, J. C. (1992). Locus of the single-channel bottleneck in dual-task interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 18, 471-484.
14. MOYER, R. S., & LANDAUER, T. K. (1967). Time required for judgments of numerical inequality. Nature, 215, 1519-1520.
15. NAVON, D., & MILLER, J. (2002). Queuing or sharing? A critical evaluation of the single-bottleneck notion. Cognitive Psychology, 44, 193-251.
16. ORIET, C., & JOLICŒUR, P. (2003). Absence of perceptual processing during reconfiguration of task set. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 29, 1036-1049.
17. PASHLER, H. (1994). Dual-task interference in simple tasks: Data and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 220-244.
18. PASHLER, H., & JOHNSTON, J. C. (1989). Chronometric evidence for central postponement in temporally overlapping tasks. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 41A, 19-45.
19. ROGERS, R. D., & MONSELL, S. (1995). Costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 207-231.
20. RULE, S. (1969). Equal discriminability scale of number. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 79, 35-38.
21. SPECTOR, A., & BIEDERMAN, I. (1976). Mental set and mental shift revisited. American Journal of Psychology, 89, 669-679.
22. SUDEVAN, P., & TAYLOR, D. A. (1987). The cuing and priming of cognitive operations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 13, 89-103.
23. TOMBU, M., & JOLICŒUR, P. (2003). A central capacity sharing model of dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 29, 3-18.
24. TZELGOV, J., MEYER, J., & HENIK, A. (1992). Automatic and intentional processing of numerical information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 18, 166-179.
25. VAN SELST, M., & JOLICŒUR, P. (1994). A solution to the effect of sample size on outlier elimination. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47A, 631-650.
26. VAN SELST, M., & JOLICŒUR, P. (1997). Decision and response in dual-task interference. Cognitive Psychology, 33, 266-307.
27. WINDES, J. (1968). Reaction time for numerical coding and naming of numerals. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 78, 318-322.