The representation of negative numbers: Exploring the effects of mode of processing and notation

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

Volumn 62, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 605-624

  Tzelgov, Joseph ^a   Ganor Stern, Dana ^b   Maymon Schreiber, Keren ^a  

^a BEN GURION UNIVERSITY OF THE NEGEV   (Israel)

^b ACHVA ACADEMIC COLLEGE   (Israel)

Author keywords

Automaticity; Negative numbers; Notation; Numerical processing

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; COGNITION; CONCEPT FORMATION; HUMAN; MATHEMATICS; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PERCEPTIVE DISCRIMINATION; PHOTOSTIMULATION; PHYSIOLOGY; REACTION TIME;

ADULT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; COGNITION; CONCEPT FORMATION; DISCRIMINATION (PSYCHOLOGY); HUMANS; MATHEMATICS; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; PHOTIC STIMULATION; REACTION TIME; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 65349174486     PISSN: 17470218     EISSN: 17470226     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/17470210802034751     Document Type: Article

References (24)

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 and Performance, 2, 435-447.
2. Bonato, M., Fabbri, S., Umiltà, C., &Zorzi, M. (2007).The mental representation of numerical fractions: Real or integer? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33, 1410-1419.
3. Caution, J. F., &Brannon, E. M. (2005). Semantic congruity affects numerical judgments similarly in monkeys and humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102, 16507-16511.
4. Cech, C, & Shoben, E. J. (1985). Contexts effects in symbolic magnitude comparisons. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11, 299-315.
5. Choplin, J. M., & Logan, G. D. (2005). A memorybased account of automatic numerosity processing. Memory & Cognition, 33, 17-28.
6. Dehaene, S., Bossini, S, &Giraux, P. (1993). The mental representation of parity and number magnitude. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122, 371-396.
7. Fischer, M. (2003). Cognitive representation of negative numbers. Psychological Science, 14, 278-282.
8. Fischer, M., & Rottmann, J. (2005). Do negative numbers have a place on the mental number line? Psychology Science, 47,22-32.
9. Ganor-Stern, D, & Tzelgov, J. (2008). Negative numbers are generated in the mind. Experimental Psychology, 55, 157-163.
10. Ganor-Stern, D., Tzelgov, J., &Ellenbogen, R. (2007). Automaticity and two-digit numbers. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33, 483-496.
11. 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.
12. Loftus, G. R., &Masson, M. (1994). Using confidence intervals in within-subject designs. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1, 476-490.
13. Logan, G. (1988). Toward an instance theory of automatization. Psychological Review, 91, 295-327.
14. Ni, Y., & Zhou, Y. D. (2005). Teaching and learning fraction and rational numbers: The origins and implications of whole number bias. Educational Psychologist, 40, 27-52.
15. 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.
16. Pansky, A., & Algom, D. (1999). Stroop and Garner effects in comparative judgment of numerals: The role of attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 39-58.
17. Pansky, A., & Algom, D. (2002). Comparative judgment of numerosity and numerical magnitude: Attention preempts automaticity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 259-274.
18. Schwarz, W., & Ischebeck, A. (2003). On the relative speed account of number-size interference in comparative judgments of numerals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 507-522.
19. Shaki, S, &Petrusic, W. M. (2005). On the mental representation of negative numbers: Context-dependent SNARC effects with comparative judgments. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 12, 931-937.
20. Tzelgov, J., & Ganor-Stern, D. (2005). Automaticity in processing ordinal information. In J. I. D. Campbell (Ed.), Handbook of mathematical cognition (pp. 55-67). New York: Psychology Press.
21. Tzelgov, J., Meyer, J., & Henik, A. (1992). Automatic and intentional processing of numerical information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 166-179.
22. Tzelgov, J., Yehene, V., Kotler, L., & Alon, A. (2000). Automatic comparisons of artificial digits never compared: Learning linear ordering relations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 103-120.
23. Verguts, T., & De Moor, W. (2005). Two-digit comparison: Decomposed, holistic, or hybrid? Experimental Psychology, 52, 195-200.
24. Zbrodoff, N.J., & Logan, G. D. (2005). What everyone nets: The problem-size etrect. In J. I. JJ. Campbell (Ed.), Handbook of mathematical cognition (pp. 331-346). New York: Psychology Press.