The size congruity effect: Is bigger always more?

Cognition

Volumn 118, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 94-110

  Santens, Seppe ^a   Verguts, Tom ^a  

^a GHENT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Number processing; Numerical cognition; Numerical Stroop; Size congruity

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; COGNITION; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MALE; MATHEMATICAL COMPUTING; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; PRIORITY JOURNAL; TASK PERFORMANCE; ADOLESCENT; MATHEMATICS; MENTAL FUNCTION; STROOP TEST;

ADOLESCENT; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MATHEMATICS; MENTAL PROCESSES; STROOP TEST; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 79952804352     PISSN: 00100277     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.10.014     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Ansari D., Fugelsang J.A., Dhital B., Venkatraman V. Dissociating response conflict from numerical magnitude processing in the brain: An event-related fMRI study. NeuroImage 2006, 32:799-805.
2. Algom D., Dekel A., Pansky A. The perception of number from the separability of the stimulus: The Stroop effect revisited. Memory & Cognition 1996, 24:557-572.
3. Besner D., Coltheart M. Ideographic and alphabetic processing in skilled reading of English. Neuropsychologia 1979, 17:467-472.
4. Botvinick M.M., Braver T.S., Barch D.M., Carter C.S., Cohen J.D. Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psychological Review 2001, 108:624-652.
5. Bueti D., Walsh V. The parietal cortex and the representation of time, space, number and other magnitudes. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B - Biological Sciences 2009, 364:1831-1840.
6. Cantlon J.F., Platt M.L., Brannon E.M. Beyond the number domain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2009, 13:83-91.
7. Chiou R.Y.-C., Chang E.C., Tzeng O.J.-L., Wu D.H. The common magnitude code underlying numerical and size processing for action but not for perception. Experimental Brain Research 2009, 194:553-562.
8. Cohen J.D., Dunbar K., McClelland J.L. On the control of automatic processes - A parallel distributed processing account of the Stroop effect. Psychological Review 1990, 97:332-361.
9. Cohen J.D., Servan-Schreiber D., McClelland J.L. A parallel distributed processing approach to automaticity. The American Journal of Psychology 1992, 105:239-269.
10. Cohen Kadosh R., Cohen Kadosh K., Henik A. When brightness counts: The neuronal correlate of numerical-luminance interference. Cerebral Cortex 2008, 18:337-343.
11. Cohen Kadosh R., Cohen Kadosh K., Linden D.E.J., Gevers W., Berger A., Henik A. The brain locus of interaction between number and size: A combined functional magnetic resonance imaging and event-related potential study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2007, 19:957-970.
12. Cohen Kadosh R., Henik A. A common representation for semantic and physical properties. Experimental Psychology 2006, 53:87-94.
13. Cohen Kadosh R., Lammertyn J., Izard V. Are numbers special? An overview of chronometric, neuroimaging, developmental and comparative studies of magnitude representation. Progress in Neurobiology 2008, 84:132-147.
14. Cohen Kadosh R., Walsh V. From magnitude to natural numbers: A developmental neurocognitive perspective. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 2008, 31:647-648.
15. Coles M.G.H. Modern mind-brain reading: Psychophysiology, physiology, and cognition. Pscyhophysiology 1989, 26:251-269.
16. Dormal V., Andres M., Pesenti M. Dissociation of numerosity and duration processing in the left intraparietal sulcus: A transcranial magnetic stimulation study. Cortex 2008, 44:462-469.
17. Dormal V., Pesenti M. Numerosity-length interference - A Stroop experiment. Experimental Psychology 2007, 54:289-297.
18. Dormal V., Pesenti M. Common and specific contributions of the intraparietal sulci to numerosity and length processing. Human Brain Mapping 2009, 30:2466-2476.
19. Gebuis T., Cohen Kadosh R., de Haan E., Henik A. Automatic quantity processing in 5-year olds and adults. Cognitive Processing 2009, 10:133-142.
20. Gevers W., Ratinckx E., De Baene W., Fias W. Further evidence that the SNARC effect is processed along a dual-route architecture - Evidence from the lateralized readiness potential. Experimental Psychology 2006, 53:58-68.
21. Gevers W., Verguts T., Reynvoet B., Caessens B., Fias W. Numbers and space: A computational model of the SNARC effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology - Human Perception and Performance 2006, 32:32-44.
22. Hackley S.A., Miller J. Response complexity and precue interval effects on the lateralized readiness potential. Psychophysiology 1995, 32:230-241.
23. Henik A., Tzelgov J. Is 3 greater than 5 - The relation between physical and semantic size in comparison tasks. Memory & Cognition 1982, 10:389-395.
24. Kaufmann L., Koppelstaetter F., Delazer M., Siedentopf C., Rhomberg P., Golaszewski S., et al. Neural correlates of distance and congruity effects in a numerical Stroop task: An event-related fMRI study. NeuroImage 2005, 25:888-898.
25. Masaki H., Wild-Wall N., Sangals J., Sommer W. The functional locus of the lateralized readiness potential. Psychophysiology 2004, 41:220-230.
26. Meck W.H., Church R.M. A mode control model of counting and timing processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes 1983, 9:320-334.
27. Nieder A., Miller E.K. A parieto-frontal network for visual numerical information in the monkey. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 2004, 101:7457-7462.
28. Loftus G.R., Masson M.E.J. Using confidence-intervals in within-subject designs. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 1994, 1:476-490.
29. Pansky A., Algom D. Stroop and Garner effects in comparative judgment of numerals: The role of attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology - Human Perception and Performance 1999, 25:39-58.
30. Pinel P., Piazza M., Le Bihan D., Dehaene S. Distributed and overlapping cerebral representations of number, size, and luminance during comparative judgments. Neuron 2004, 41:983-993.
31. Ratcliff R. A theory of memory retrieval. Psychological Review 1978, 85:59-108.
32. Santens S., Gevers W. The SNARC effect does not imply a mental number line. Cognition 2008, 108:263-270.
33. Schwarz W., Heinze H.J. On the interaction of numerical and size information in digit comparison: A behavioral and event-related potential study. Neuropsychologia 1998, 36:1167-1179.
34. Schwarz W., Ischebeck A. On the relative speed account of number-size interference in comparative judgment of numerals. Journal of Experimental Psychology - Human Perception and Performance 2003, 29:507-522.
35. Stevens M., Lammertyn J., Verbruggen F., Vandierendonck A. Tscope: A C library for programming cognitive experiments on the MS Windows platform. Behavior Research Methods 2006, 38:280-286.
36. Stroop J.R. Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology 1935, 18:643-662.
37. Szücs D., Soltész F. The interaction of task-relevant and task-irrelevant stimulus features in the number/size congruency paradigm: An ERP study. Brain Research 2008, 1190:143-158.
38. Tudusciuc O., Nieder A. Neural population coding of continuous and discrete quantity in the primate posterior parietal cortex. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 2007, 104:14513-14518.
39. Usher M., McClelland J.L. The time course of perceptual choice: The leaky, competing accumulator model. Psychological Review 2001, 108:550-592.
40. Van Opstal F., Gevers W., De Moor W., Verguts T. Dissecting the symbolic distance effect: Comparison and priming effects in numerical and nonnumerical orders. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2008, 15:419-425.
41. Verguts T., Fias W. Representation of number in animals and humans: A neural model. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2004, 16:1493-1504.
42. Verguts T., Fias W. Symbolic and nonsymbolic pathways of number processing. Philosophical Psychology 2008, 21:539-554.
43. Verguts T., Fias W., Stevens M. A model of exact small-number representation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2005, 12:66-80.
44. Walsh V. A theory of magnitude: common cortical metrics of time, space and quantity. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2003, 7:483-488.
45. Xuan B., Zhang D., He S., Chen X. Larger stimuli are judged to last longer. Journal of Vision 2007, 7:1-5.
46. Yeung N., Botvinick M.M., Cohen J.D. The neural basis of error detection: Conflict monitoring and the error-related negativity. Psychological Review 2004, 111:931-959.
47. Zorzi M., Umiltà C. A computational model of the Simon effect. Psychological Research - Psychologische Forschung 1995, 58:193-205.