A Linguistic Remark on SNARC: Language and Perceptual Processes in Spatial-Numerical Association

Expanding the Space of Cognitive Science - Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, CogSci 2011

Volumn , Issue , 2011, Pages 3437-3442

  Hutchinson, Sterling ^a   Johnson, Sophia ^a   Louwerse, Max M ^a  

^a Institute for Intelligent Systems   (United States)

Author keywords

embodied cognition; mental number line; mental representations; number processing; numerical cognition; perceptual simulation; SNARC

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER SIMULATION LANGUAGES;

'CURRENT; CODE LANGUAGES; EMBODIED COGNITION; LINGUISTIC DATA; MENTAL NUMBER LINE; MENTAL REPRESENTATIONS; NUMBER PROCESSING; NUMERICAL COGNITION; PERCEPTUAL SIMULATION; SPATIAL-NUMERICAL ASSOCIATION OF RESPONSE CODE;

LINGUISTICS;

EID: 85139468417     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (40)

1. Andres, M., Ostry, D. J., Nicol, F., Paus, T. (2008). Time course of number magnitude interference during grasping. Cortex, 44, 414-419.
2. Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 390-412.
3. Bächtold, D., Baumüller, M., & Brugger, P. (1998). Stimulus-response compatibility in representational space. Neuropsychologia, 36, 731-735.
4. Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 577-660.
5. Brants, T., & Franz, A. (2006). Web 1T 5-gram Version 1. Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium.
6. Damian, M. F. (2004). Asymmetries in the processing of Arabic digits and number words. Memory and Cognition, 32, 164-171.
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., & Mehler, J. (1991). Cross-linguistic regularities in the frequency of number words. Cognition, 43, 1-29.
9. Fias, W. (2001). Two routes for the processing of verbal numbers: Evidence from the SNARC effect. Psychological Research, 65, 250-259.
10. Fischer, M., Shaki, S., & Cruise, A. (2009). It Takes Just One Word to Quash a SNARC. Experimental Psychology, 56, 361-366.
11. Gevers, W., Caessens, B., & Fias, W. (2005). Towards a common processing architecture underlying Simon and SNARC effects. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 17, 659-673.
12. Gevers, W., Lammertyn, J., Notebaert, W., Verguts, T., & Fias, W. (2005). Automatic response activation of implicit spatial information: Evidence from the SNARC effect. Acta Psychologica, 122, 221–233
13. Glenberg, A. M. (1997). What memory is for: Creating meaning in the service of action. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 20, 41-50.
14. Glenberg, A. M., & Kaschak, M. P. (2002). Grounding language in action. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 558-565.
15. Ito, Y., & Hatta, T. (2004). Spatial structure of quantitative representation of numbers: Evidence from the SNARC effect. Memory & Cognition, 32, 662–673.
16. Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
17. Littell, R. C., Stroup, W. W., & Freund, R. J. (2002). SAS for linear models. Cary, NC: SAS Publishing.
18. Louwerse, M. M. (2007). Symbolic or embodied representations: A case for symbol interdependency. In T. Landauer, D. McNamara, S. Dennis, & W. Kintsch (Eds.). Handbook of latent semantic analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
19. Louwerse, M. M. (2008). Embodied relations are encoded in language. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 838-844.
20. Louwerse, M. M. (2010). Symbol interdependency in symbolic and embodied cognition. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1-30.
21. Louwerse, M. M., & Jeuniaux, P. (2010). The linguistic and embodied nature of conceptual processing. Cognition, 114, 96-104.
22. Nuerk, H. C., Iversen, W., & Willmes, K. (2004). Notational modulation of the SNARC and the MARC (linguistic markedness of response codes) effect. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57, 835-863.
23. Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
24. Pecher, D., & Zwaan, R. A. (Eds.). (2005). Grounding cognition: The role of perception and action in memory, language, and thinking. New York: Cambridge University Press.
25. Proctor, R. W., & Cho, Y. S. (2006). Polarity correspondence: A general principle for performance of speeded binary classification tasks. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 416–442.
26. Reynvoet, B., & Brysbaert, M. (1999). Single-digit and two-digit Arabic numerals address the same semantic number line. Cognition, 72, 191-201.
27. Richter, T. (2006). What is wrong with ANOVA and multiple regression? Analyzing sentence reading times with hierarchical linear models. Discourse Processes, 41, 221–250.
28. Semenza, C. (2008). Number Processing. In B. Stemmer & H. A. Whitaker (Eds.). Handbook of the Neuroscience of Language. London, England: Academic Press.
29. Semin, G. R., & Smith, E. R. (Eds.). (2008). Embodied grounding: Social, cognitive, affective, and neuroscientific approaches. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
30. Šetić, M., & Domijan, D. (2007). The influence of vertical spatial orientation on property verification. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22, 297-312.
31. Shaki, S., Fischer, M., & Petrusic, W. (2009). Reading habits for both words and numbers contribute to the SNARC effect. Psychological Bulletin & Review, 16, 328-331.
32. Stanfield, R., & Zwaan, R. A. (2001). The effect of implied orientation derived from verbal context on picture recognition. Psychological Science, 12, 153-156.
33. Suzuki, M., Sugimoto, Y., Tsuruo, T., Bächtold, D., Baumüller, M., & Brugger, P. (1998). Stimulus-response compatability in representational space. Neuropsychologia, 36, 731-735.
34. 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.
35. Van Dantzig, S., Pecher, D., Zeelenberg, R., & Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Perceptual processing affects conceptual processing. Cognitive Science, 32, 579-590.
36. Wood, G., Nuerk, H. C., Willmes, K., & Fischer, M. H. (2008). On the cognitive link between space and number: a meta-analysis of the SNARC effect. Psychology Science Quarterly, 50, 489-525.
37. Zebian, S. (2005). Linkages between number concepts, spatial thinking, and directionality of writing: The SNARC effect and the reverse SNARC effect in English and Arabic monoliterates, biliterates, and illiterate Arabic speakers. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 1, 165-190.
38. Zorzi, M., Priftis, K., & Umilta, C. (2002). Brain damage: neglect disrupts the mental number line. Nature, 417, 138-139.
39. Zorzi, M., Priftis, K., Meneghello, F., Marenzi, R., & Umilta, C. (2006). The spatial representation of numerical and non-numerical sequences: Evidence from neglect. Neuropsychologia, 44, 1061-1067.
40. Zwaan, R. A., & Yaxley, R. (2004). Lateralization of object-shape information in semantic processing. Cognition, 94, B35-B43.