Further evidence that the SNARC effect is processed along a dual-route architectures: Evidence from the lateralized readiness potential

Experimental Psychology

Volumn 53, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 58-68

  Gevers, Wim ^a   Ratinckx, Elie ^a   De Baene, Wouter ^a,b   Fias, Wim ^a  

^a GHENT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Dual route; LRP; Simon effect; SNARC effect

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AROUSAL; ARTICLE; DISTANCE PERCEPTION; ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAPHY; ELECTROOCULOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; REACTION TIME; VISION;

ADULT; AROUSAL; DISTANCE PERCEPTION; ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAPHY; ELECTROOCULOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; REACTION TIME; VISUAL PERCEPTION;

EID: 33645278982     PISSN: 16183169     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1027/1618-3169.53.1.58     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Buckley, P. B., & Gillman, C. B. (1974). Comparison of digits and dot patterns. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 103, 1131-1136.
2. Burle, B., Possamaï, C. A., Vidai, F., Bonnet, M., & Hasbroucq, T. (2002). Executive control in the Simon effect: An electromyographic and distributional analysis. Psychological Research, 66(4), 324-336.
3. Caessens, B., Hommel, B., Reynvoet, B., & van der Goten, K. (2005). Backward-compatibility effects with irrelevant S-R overlap: The case of the SNARC effect. Journal of General Psychology, 131(4), 411-425.
4. Coles, M. G. H (1989). Modern mind-brain reading: Psychophysiology, physiology, and cognition. Psychophysiology, 26, 251-269.
5. Dehaene, S., Bossini, S., & Giraux, P. (1993). The mental representation of parity and number magnitude. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122, 371-396.
6. Dehaene, S., Dehaene-Lambertz, G., & Cohen, L. (1998). Abstract representations of numbers in the animal and human brain. Trends in Neurosciences, 27(8), 355-361.
7. 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, 731-750.
8. Donchin, E., & Coles, M. G. H (1988). Is the P300 component a manifestation of context updating. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 11, 357-427.
9. Eimer, M. (1998). The lateralized readiness potential as an on-line measure of central response activation processes. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 30(1), 146-156.
10. Eriksen, B. A., & Eriksen, C. W. (1974). Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a non-search task. Perception and Psychophysics, 16, 143-149.
11. Fias, W. (2001). Two routes for the processing of verbal numbers: Evidence from the SNARC effect. Psychological Research, 65, 250-259.
12. Fias, W., Brysbaert, M., Geypens, F., & d'Ydewalle, G. (1996). The importance of magnitude information in numerical processing: Evidence from the SNARC effect. Mathematical Cognition, 2, 95-110.
13. Fias, W., & Fischer, M. H. (2005). Spatial representation of number. In J. I. D. Campbell (Ed.), Handbook of mathematical cognition (pp. 43-54). New York: Psychology Press.
14. Fischer, M. H., Castel, A. D., Dodd, M. D., & Pratt, J. (2003). Perceiving numbers causes spatial shifts of attention. Nature Neuroscience, 6, 555-556.
15. 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.
16. Gevers, W., & Lammertyn, J. (in press). The hunt for SNARC. Psychology Science.
17. Hackley, S. A., & Valle-Inclán, F (1999). Accessory stimulus effects on response selection: Does arousal speed decision making? Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 11, 321-329.
18. Hackley, S. A., & Miller, J. (1995). Response complexity and precue interval effects on the lateralized readiness potential. Psychophysiology, 32, 230-241.
19. Hasbroucq, T., Possamaï, C. A., Bonnet, M., & Vidal, F. (1999). Effect of the irrelevant location of the response signal on choice reaction time: An electromyographic study in humans. Psychophysiology, 36(4), 522-526.
20. 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.
21. Keus, I. M., & Schwarz, W. (in press). Searching for the functional locus of the SNARC effect: Evidence for a response-related origin. Memory and Cognition.
22. Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., & Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility - A model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97, 253-270.
23. Kutas, M., & Donchin, E. (1980). Preparation to respond as manifested by movement-related brain potentials. Brain Research, 202, 95-115.
24. Kutas, M., McCarthy, G., & Donchin, E. (1977). Augmenting mental chronometry: The P300 as a measure of stimulus evaluation time. Science, 197, 792-795.
25. Lammertyn, J., Fias, W., & Lauwereyns, J. (2002). Semantic influences on feature-based attention due to overlap of neural circuits. Cortex, 38, 878-882.
26. Leuthold, H., & Sommer, W., & Ulrich, R. (1996). Partial advance information and response preparation: Inferences from the lateralized readiness potential. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 125, 307-323.
27. Lu, C. H., & Proctor, R. W. (1995). The influence of irrelevant location information on performance: A review of the Simon and spatial Stroop effects. Psvchonomic Bulletin & Review, 2, 147-207.
28. MacLeod, C. M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 163-203.
29. Mapelli, D., Rusconi, E., & Umiltà, C. (2003). The SNARC effect: an instance of the Simon effect? Cognition, 88(3), B1-B10.
30. Masaki, H., Takasawa, N., & Yamazaki, K. (2000). An electrophysiological study of the locus of the interference effect in a stimulus-response compatibility paradigm. Psychophysiology. 37, 464-472.
31. Masaki, H., Wild-Wall, N., Sangals, J., & Sommer, W. (2004). The functional locus of the lateralized readiness potential. Psvchophysiology, 41, 1-11.
32. Miller, J., Patterson, T., & Ulrich, R. (1998). Jackknifebased method for measuring LRP onset latency differences. Psychophysiology, 35, 99-115.
33. Mordkoff, J. T., & Gianaros, P. J. (2000). Detecting the onset of the lateralized readiness potential: a comparison of available methods and procedures. Psvchophvsiology, 37, 347-360.
34. Mordkoff, J. T., Miller, J., & Roch, A. C. (1996). Absence of coactivation in the motor component: Evidence from psychophysiological measures of target detection. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22, 25-41.
35. Moyer, R. S., & Landauer, T. K. (1967). Time required for judgements of numerical inequality. Nature, 215, 1519-1520.
36. Nowagk, R., & Pfeifer, E. (1996). Unix implementation of the ERP evaluation package (EEP 3.0), In A. D. Friederici & D. Y. von Cramon (eds.), Annual report of MaxPlanck Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience (pp. 124-126). Leipzig, Germany.
37. Osman, A. M., Moore, C. M., & Ulrich, R. (1995). Precuing effects on perceptual-motor overlap. Acta Psychologica, 90, 111-127.
38. Proctor, R. W., & Reeve, T. G. (Eds.) (1990). Stimulus-response compatibility: An integrated perspective. Amsterdam: North Holland.
39. Ragot, R. (1984). Perceptual and motor space representation: An event related potential study. Psychophysiology, 21, 159-170.
40. Ragot, R., & Renault, B. (1981). P300 as a function of S-R compatibility and motor programming. Biological Psychology, 13, 289-294.
41. Sanders, A. F. (1990). Issues and trends in the debate on discrete vs. continuous processing of information. Acta Psychologica, 74, 123-167.
42. Simon, J. R. (1969). Reaction toward the source of stimulation. Journal of Experimental Psychologv, 81, 1974-1976.
43. Simon, J. R., & Berbaum, K. (1990). Effect of conflicting cues on information processing: The Stroop effect vs. the Simon effect. Acta Psychologica, 73, 159-170.
44. Smulders, F. T. Y (1993). The selectivity of age effects on information processing: Response times and electrophysiology. Amsterdam: Universiteit van Amsterdam.
45. Sommer, W., Leuthold, H., & Hermanutz, M. (1993). Covert effects of alcohol revealed by event-related potentials. Perception and Psychophysics, 54, 127-135.
46. Sternberg, S. (1969). The discovery of processing stages: Extensions of Bonders' Method. Acta Psychologica, 30, 276-315.
47. Stürmer, B., Leuthold, H., Soetens, E., Schroter, H., & Sommer, W. (2002). Control over location-based response activation in the Simon task: Behavioral and electropsychophysiological evidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28(6), 1345-1363.
48. Tlauka, M. (2002). The processing of numbers in choicereaction tasks. Australian Journal of Psychology, 54, 94-98.
49. Umiltà, C., & Nicoletti, R. (1990). Spatial stimulus-response compatibility: An integrated perspective. In R. W. Proctor & T. G. Reeve (eds.), Stimulus-response compatibility: An integrated perspective (pp. 89-116). Amsterdam: North Holland.
50. Valle-Inclàn, F. (1996). The locus of interference in the Simon effect: an ERP study. Biological Psychology, 43, 147-162.
51. van der Lubbe, R. H. J., Jaskowski, P., Wauschkuhn, B., & Verleger, R. (2001). Influence of time pressure in a simple response task, a choice-by-location task and the Simon task. Journal of Psychophysiology, 15(4), 241-255.
52. Verleger, R. (1997). On the utility of P3 latency as an index of mental chronometry. Psychophysiology, 34, 131-156.
53. Zeef, E. J., & Kok, A. (1993). Age-related differences in the timing of stimulus and response processes during visual selective attention: Performance and psychophysiological analysis. Psychophysiology, 30, 138-151.
54. Zorzi, M., & Umiltá, C. (1995). A computational model of the Simon effect. Psychological Research, 58, 193-205.