On the mental representation of negative numbers: Context-dependent SNARC effects with comparative judgments

Psychonomic Bulletin and Review

Volumn 12, Issue 5, 2005, Pages 931-937

  Shaki, Samuel ^a,b   Petrusic, William M ^a  

^a CARLETON UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b ARIEL UNIVERSITY   (Israel)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33644749257     PISSN: 10699384     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/BF03196788     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. BANKS, W. P., FUJII, M. S., & KAYRA-STUART, F. (1976). Semantic congruity effects in comparative judgments of magnitudes of digits. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 2, 435-447.
2. BERCH, D. B., FOLEY, E. J., HILL, R. J., & RYAN, P. M. (1999). Extracting parity and magnitude from Arabic numerals: Developmental changes in number processing and mental representation. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 74, 286-308.
3. DEHAENE, S. (1992). Varieties of numerical abilities. Cognition, 44, 1-42.
4. DEHAENE, S., BOSSINI, S., & GIRAUX, P. (1993). The mental representation of parity and number magnitude. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122, 371-396.
5. DEL GRANDE, J. J., JONES, P. T., LOWE, I. M., & MORROW, L. (1974). Math: Book 1 (rev. ed.). Toronto: Gage Educational Publishing.
6. FIAS, W. (2001). Two routes for the processing of verbal numbers: Evi dence from the SNARC effect. Psychological Research, 65, 250-259.
7. FISCHER, M. H. (2003a). Cognitive representation of negative numbers. Psychological Science, 14, 278-282.
8. FISCHER, M. H. (2003b). Spatial representations in number processing: Evidence from a pointing task. Visual Cognition, 10, 493-508.
9. FISCHER, M. H., & ROTTMANN, J. (2005). Do negative numbers have a place on the mental number line? Psychology Science, 47, 22-32.
10. FITOUSI, D., & ALCOM, D. (2004). Parity and magnitude in numerical comparisons: A direct contrast, in A. M. Oliveira, M. Teixeira, G. F. Borges, & M. J. Ferro (Eds.), Fechner Day 2004: Proceedings of the XX Annual Meeting of the International Society for Psychophysics, Coimbra, Portugal: International Society for Psychophysics.
11. GARNER, W. R. (1974). The processing of information and structure. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
12. ISMAIL, A. (2003). Polarity judgments with positive and negative numbers: The SNARC effect revisited. Bachelor of Science honours thesis in the Interdisciplinary Sciences Programme. Carleton University, Ottawa.
13. ITO, Y., & HATTA, T. (2004). Spatial structure of quantitative representation of numbers: Evidence from the SNARC effect. Memory & Cognition, 32, 662-673.
14. LORCH, R. F., & MYERS, J. L. (1990). Regression analyses of repeated measures data in cognitive research. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 16, 149-157.
15. MOYER, R. S., & LANDAUER, T. K. (1967). Time required for judgment of inequality. Nature, 215, 1519-1520.
16. NUERK, H.-C., IVERSEN, W., & WILLMES, K. (2004). Notational modulation of the SNARC and the MARC (linguistic markedness of response codes) effect. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57A, 835-863.
17. SCHWARZ, W., & KEUS, I. M. (2004). Moving the eyes along the mental number line: Combining SNARC effects with saccadic and manual responses. Perception & Psychophysics, 66, 651-664.