The role of parity, physical size, and magnitude in numerical cognition: The SNARC effect revisited

Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics

Volumn 71, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 143-155

  Fitousi, Daniel ^a   Shaki, Samuel ^b   Algom, Daniel ^c  

^a PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b ARIEL UNIVERSITY   (Israel)

^c TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY   (Israel)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ATTENTION; DECISION MAKING; HEMISPHERIC DOMINANCE; HUMAN; LEARNING; MATHEMATICS; ORIENTATION; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PERCEPTION; PROBLEM SOLVING; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REACTION TIME; SEMANTICS;

ASSOCIATION LEARNING; ATTENTION; DECISION MAKING; FUNCTIONAL LATERALITY; HUMANS; JUDGMENT; MATHEMATICS; ORIENTATION; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; PROBLEM SOLVING; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REACTION TIME; SEMANTICS; SIZE PERCEPTION;

EID: 64749083060     PISSN: 19433921     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/APP.71.1.143     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Algom, D., Dekel, A., & Pansky, A. (1996). The perception of number from the separability of the stimulus: The Stroop effect revisited. Memory & Cognition, 24, 557-572.
2. Bächtold, D., Baumuller, M., & Brugger, P. (1998). Stimulus-response compatibility in representational space. Neuropsychologia, 36, 731-735.
3. 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.
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. Choplin, J. M., & Logan, G. D. (2005). A memory-based account of automatic numerosity processing. Memory & Cognition, 33, 17-28.
6. Dehaene, S. (1997). The number sense: How the mind creates mathematics. New York: Oxford University Press.
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. 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 & Performance, 16, 626-641.
9. Fias, W. (2001). Two routes for the processing of verbal numbers: Evidence from the SNARC effect. Psychological Research, 65, 250-259.
10. 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.
11. Fischer, M. H. (2001). Number processing induces spatial performance biases. Neurology, 57, 822-826.
12. Fischer, M. H. (2003). Spatial representation in number processing: Evidence from a pointing task. Visual Cognition, 10, 493-508.
13. Fischer, M. H. (2006). The future for SNARC could be stark. Cortex, 42, 1066-1068.
14. Fitousi, D., & Algom, D. (2006). Size congruity effects with two-digit numbers: Expanding the number line? Memory & Cognition, 34, 445-457.
15. Ganel, T., Chajut, E., & Algom, D. (2008). Visual coding of action violates fundamental psychophysical principles. Current Biology, 18, R559-R601.
16. Ganel, T., & Goodale, M. A. (2003). Visual control of action but not perception requires analytical processing of object shape. Nature, 426, 664-667.
17. Ganel, T., & Goshen-Gottstein, Y. (2002). Perceptual integrality of sex and identity of faces: Further evidence for the single-route hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 28, 854-867.
18. Garner, W. R. (1974). The processing of information and structure. Potomac, MD: Erlbaum.
19. Gevers, W., Reynvoet, B., & Fias, W. (2003). The mental representation of ordinal sequences is spatially organized. Cognition, 87, B87-B95.
20. Gevers, W., Reynvoet, B., & Fias, W. (2004). The mental representation of ordinal sequences is spatially organised: Evidence from days of the week. Cortex, 40, 171-172.
21. 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 & Performance, 32, 32-44.
22. Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
23. Ito, Y., & Hatta, T. (2004). Spatial structure of quantitative representation of numbers: Evidence from the SNARC effect. Memory & Cognition, 32, 662-673.
24. Keus, I. M., & Schwarz, W. (2005). Searching for the functional locus of the SNARC effect: Evidence for a response-related origin. Memory & Cognition, 33, 681-695.
25. Lammertyn, J., Fias, W., & Lauwereyns, J. (2002). Semantic influences of feature-based attention depending on the overlap of neural circuits. Cortex, 38, 878-882.
26. Logan, G. D. (1988). Toward an instance theory of automatization. Psychological Review, 95, 492-527.
27. Lorch, R. F., Jr., & Myers, J. L. (1990). Regression analyses of repeated measures data in cognitive research. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 16, 149-157.
28. Melara, R. D., & Algom, D. (2003). Driven by information: A tectonic theory of Stroop effects. Psychological Review, 110, 422-471.
29. Melara, R. D., & Mounts, J. R. W. (1993). Selective attention to Stroop dimensions: Effects of baseline discriminability, response mode, and practice. Memory & Cognition, 21, 627-645.
30. Milner, A. D., & Goodale, M. A. (1995). The visual brain in action. London: Oxford University Press.
31. Moyer, R. S., & Landauer, T. K. (1967). The time required for judgments of numerical inequality. Nature, 215, 1519-1520.
32. Otten, L. J., Sudevan, P., Logan, G. D., & Coles, M. G. H. (1996). Magnitude versus parity in numerical judgments: Event-related brain potentials implicate response conflict as the source of interference. Acta Psychologica, 94, 21-40.
33. Pansky, A., & Algom, D. (1999). Stroop and Garner effects in comparative judgment of numerals: The role of attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 25, 39-58.
34. Pansky, A., & Algom, D. (2002). Comparative judgment of numerosity and numerical magnitude: Attention preempts automaticity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 28, 259-274.
35. Schwarz, W., & Keus, I. M., (2004). Moving the eyes along the mental number line: Comparing SNARC effects with saccadic and manual responses. Memory & Cognition, 66, 651-664.
36. Schweinberger, S. R., & Soukup, G. R. (1998). Asymmetric relationships among perceptions of facial identity, emotion, and facial speech. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 24, 1748-1765.
37. Sudevan, P., & Taylor, D. A. (1987). The cuing and priming of cognitive operations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 13, 89-103.
38. Tzelgov, J., Meyer, J., & Henik, A. (1992). Automatic and intentional processing of numerical information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 18, 166-179.
39. Wood, G., Nuerk, H. C., & Willmes, K. (2006). Crossed hands and the SNARC effect: A failure to replicate Dehaene, Bossini, & Giraux (1993). Cortex, 42, 1069-1079.d