Incongruence in number-luminance congruency effects

Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics

Volumn 73, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 259-265

  Gebuis, Titia ^a   van der Smagt, Maarten J ^a  

^a UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Mental number line; Numerical cognition; Size congruency

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; ATTENTION; CONFLICT; CONTRAST SENSITIVITY; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; MATHEMATICS; PERCEPTIVE DISCRIMINATION; REACTION TIME;

ADULT; ASSOCIATION; ATTENTION; CONFLICT (PSYCHOLOGY); CONTRAST SENSITIVITY; DISCRIMINATION (PSYCHOLOGY); FEMALE; HUMANS; JUDGMENT; MALE; MATHEMATICS; REACTION TIME; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 79951949972     PISSN: 19433921     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/s13414-010-0002-9     Document Type: Article

References (32)

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(5), 557-572.
2. Bachtold, D., Baumuller, M., & Brugger, P. (1998). Stimulus-response compatibility in representational space. Neuropsychologia, 36(8), 731-735.
3. Bonato, M., Priftis, K., Marenzi, R., & Zorzi, M. (2009). Normal and impaired reflexive orienting of attention after central nonpredic-tive cues. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21(4), 745-759.
4. Cohen Kadosh, R., Cohen Kadosh, K., & Henik, A. (2008). When brightness counts: The neuronal correlate of numerical-luminance interference. Cerebral Cortex, 18(2), 337-343.
5. Cohen Kadosh, R., Cohen Kadosh, K., Kaas, A., Henik, A.,& Goebel, R. (2007). Notation-dependent and -independent representations of numbers in the parietal lobes. Neuron, 53(2), 307-314.
6. Cohen Kadosh, R., & Henik, A. (2006). A common representation for semantic and physical properties: A cognitive-anatomical approach. Experimental Psychology, 53(2), 87-94.
7. Cohen Kadosh, R., Henik, A., Rubinsten, O., Mohr, H., Dori, H., van de Ven, V., et al. (2005). Are numbers special? The comparison systems of the human brain investigated by fMRI. Neuro-psychologia, 43(9), 1238-1248.
8. Cohen Kadosh, R., Lammertyn, J., & Izard, V. (2008). Are numbers special? An overview of chronometric, neuroimaging, develop-mental and comparative studies of magnitude representation. Progress in Neurobiology, 84(2), 132-147.
9. Cohen Kadosh, R., & Walsh, V. (2009). Numerical representation in the parietal lobes: Abstract or not abstract? Behavior Brain Sciences, 32(3-4), 313-328.
10. Dehaene, S. (1992). Varieties of numerical abilities. Cognition, 44(1-2), 1-42.
11. Dehaene, S., Bossini, S., & Gireaux, P. (1993). The mental representation of parity and number magnitude. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122, 371-396.
12. Dehaene, S., Piazza, M., Pinel, P., & Cohen, L. (2003). Three parietal circuits for number processing. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 20, 487-506.
13. Durgin, F. H. (2001). Texture contrast aftereffects are monocular; texture density aftereffects are binocular. Vision Research, 41 (20), 2619-2630.
14. Fias, W., Lammertyn, J., Reynvoet, B., Dupont, P., & Orban, G. A. (2003). Parietal representation of symbolic and nonsymbolic magnitude. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15(1), 47-56.
15. Fischer, M. H., Castel, A. D., Dodd, M. D., & Pratt, J. (2003). Perceiving numbers causes spatial shifts of attention. Nature Neuroscience, 6(6), 555-556.
16. Gebuis, T., Cohen Kadosh, R., de Haan, E., & Henik, A. (2008). Automatic quantity processing in 5-year olds and adults. Cognitive Processing.
17. Gebuis, T., Herfs, I. K., Kenemans, J. L., de Haan, E. H., & van der Smagt, M. J. (2009). The development of automated access to symbolic and non-symbolic number knowledge in children: An ERP study. European Journal of Neuroscience.
18. Gebuis, T., Kenemans, J. L., de Haan, E. H., & van der Smagt, M. J. (2010). Conflict processing of symbolic and non-symbolic numerosity. Neuropsychologia, 48(2), 394-401.
19. Gevers, W., Lammertyn, J., Notebaert, W., Verguts, T., & Fias, W. (2006). Automatic response activation of implicit spatial infor-mation: Evidence from the SNARC effect. Acta Psychologica (Amsterdam), 122(3), 221-233.
20. Gevers, W., Santens, S., Dhooge, E., Chen, Q., Van den Bossche, L., Fias, W., et al. (2010). Verbal-spatial and visuospatial coding of number-space interactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 139(1), 180-190.
21. Henik, A., & Tzelgov, J. (1982). Is three greater than five: The relation between physical and semantic size in comparison tasks. Memory & Cognition, 10(4), 389-395.
22. Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., & Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility-a model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97(2), 253-270.
23. Libertus, M. E., Woldorff, M. G., & Brannon, E. M. (2007). Electrophysiological evidence for notation independence in numerical processing. Behavioral and Brain Functions, 3, 1.
24. Loftus, G. R., & Masson, M. E. J. (1994). Using confidence intervals in within-subject designs. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1(4), 476-490.
25. Pansky, A., & Algom, D. (2002). Comparative judgment of numerosity and numerical magnitude: Attention preempts automaticity. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28 (2), 259-274.
26. Piazza, M., Pinel, P., Le Bihan, D., & Dehaene, S. (2007). A magnitude code common to numerosities and number symbols in human intraparietal cortex. Neuron, 53(2), 293-305.
27. Pinel, P., Piazza,M., Le Bihan, D.,&Dehaene, S. (2004). Distributed and overlapping cerebral representations of number, size, and luminance during comparative judgments. Neuron, 41(6), 983-993.
28. Rusconi, E., Kwan, B., Giordano, B. L., Umiltà, C., & Butterworth, B. (2006). Spatial representation of pitch height: The SMARC effect. Cognition, 99(2), 113-129.
29. Santens, S., & Gevers, W. (2008). The SNARC effect does not imply a mental number line. Cognition, 108(1), 263-270.
30. Walsh, V. (2003). A theory of magnitude: Common cortical metrics of time, space and quantity. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(11), 483-488.
31. Xuan, B., Zhang, D., He, S., & Chen, X. (2007). Larger stimuli are judged to last longer. Journal of Vision, 7(10), 2. 1-5.
32. Zhou, X., Chen, Y., Chen, C., Jiang, T., Zhang, H., & Dong, Q. (2007). Chinese kindergartners' automatic processing of numer-ical magnitude in stroop-like tasks. Memory & Cognition, 35(3), 464-470.