Reading direction and spatial effects in parity and arithmetic tasks.
Journal
Psychological research
ISSN: 1430-2772
Titre abrégé: Psychol Res
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 0435062
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Sep 2021
Sep 2021
Historique:
received:
07
04
2020
accepted:
21
07
2020
pubmed:
11
8
2020
medline:
20
8
2021
entrez:
11
8
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
This study investigated the relationship between numerical and spatial processing and reading direction, conducting conceptual replications of the Shaki et al. (Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 16(2): 328-331, 2009) parity task and the Mathieu et al. (Cognition 146: 229-239, 2016, Experiment 1) simple addition (e.g., 3 + 2) and subtraction (e.g., 3 - 2) task. Twenty-four left-to-right readers (LTR) and 24 right-to-left readers (RTL) were tested. The response time (RT) analysis of the parity task presented a robust spatial-numerical association of response codes (SNARC) effect (left-side response advantage for smaller numbers and right-side advantage for larger numbers) for LTR but not RTL readers. In the arithmetic task, the three problem elements (e.g., 3 + 4) were presented sequentially with the second operand displaced slightly to the left or right of fixation. RTL but not LTR readers presented a RT advantage for subtraction relative to addition with a right-shifted second operand compared to it being left-shifted. This is consistent with a spatial bias linked to native reading direction. For both reading-direction groups, effects of the left vs. right side manipulation in the arithmetic or parity task did not correspond to parallel effects in the other task. The results imply that the parity-based SNARC effects and side-related effects in cognitive arithmetic are not equivalent measures of space-related processes in cognitive number processing and likely reflect distinct mechanisms.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32776258
doi: 10.1007/s00426-020-01397-y
pii: 10.1007/s00426-020-01397-y
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2186-2196Subventions
Organisme : Canadian Network for Research and Innovation in Machining Technology, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
ID : 15-402907
Informations de copyright
© 2020. Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.
Références
Abrahamse, E., van Dijck, J.-P., & Fias, W. (2016). How does working memory enable number-induced spatial biases? Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 977. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00977 .
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00977
pubmed: 27445937
pmcid: 4925657
Afsari, Z., Ossandón, J. P., & König, (2016). The dynamic effect of reading direction habit on spatial asymmetry of image perception. Journal of Vision, 16, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1167/16.11.8 .
doi: 10.1167/16.11.8
Blini, E., Pitteri, M., & Zorzi, M. (2019). Spatial grounding of symbolic arithmetic: an investigation with optokinetic stimulation. Psychological Research, 83(1), 64–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-018-1053-0 .
doi: 10.1007/s00426-018-1053-0
pubmed: 30022242
Campbell, J. I. D. (1994). Architectures for numerical cognition. Cognition, 53, 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(94)90075-2 .
doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(94)90075-2
pubmed: 7988104
Campbell, J. I. D., & Alberts, N. M. (2009). Operation-specific effects of numerical surface form on arithmetic strategy. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 999–1011. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015829 .
doi: 10.1037/a0015829
pubmed: 19586266
Campbell, J. I. D., Chen, Y., & Azhar, M. (2020). Not toeing the number line for simple arithmetic: Two large-n conceptual replications of Mathieu et al. (Cognition, 2016, Experiment 1). Numerical Cognition, accepted 13/2/2020.
Campbell, J. I. D., & Epp, L. J. (2004). An encoding-complex approach to numerical cognition in Chinese-English bilinguals. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58, 229–244. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0087447 .
doi: 10.1037/h0087447
pubmed: 15648727
Campbell, J. I. D., & Fugelsang, J. (2001). Strategy choice for arithmetic verification: Effects of numerical surface form. Cognition, 80, B21–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(01)00115-9 .
doi: 10.1016/S0010-0277(01)00115-9
pubmed: 11274988
Campbell, J. I. D., & Thompson, V. A. (2012). MorePower 6.0 for ANOVA with relational confidence intervals and Bayesian analysis. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 1255–1265. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-012-0186-0 .
doi: 10.3758/s13428-012-0186-0
pubmed: 22437511
Casarotti, M., Michielin, M., Zorzi, M., & Umiltà, C. (2007). Temporal order judgment reveals how number magnitude affects visuospatial attention. Cognition, 102(1), 101–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2006.09.001 .
doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2006.09.001
pubmed: 17046735
Dehaene, S., Bossini, S., & Giraux, P. (1993). The mental representation of parity and number magnitude. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122(3), 371–396. https://doi.org/10.1037.0096-3445.122.3.371.
doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.122.3.371
Fias, W. & Bonato, M. (2018). Which space for numbers. In Henik, A. & Fias, W. (Eds.), Heterogeneity of Function in Numerical Cognition (pp. 233-242). https://doi.org/https://10.1016/b978-0-12-811529-9.00002-9.
Fias, W., & Van Dijck, J. (2016). The temporary nature of number—space interactions. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale, 70(1), 33–40. https://doi.org/10.1037/cep0000071 .
doi: 10.1037/cep0000071
pubmed: 26913783
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. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1066 .
doi: 10.1038/nn1066
pubmed: 12754517
Fischer, M. H., & Shaki, S. (2018). Number concepts: Abstract and embodied. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 373(1752), 20170125. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2017.0125 .
doi: 10.1098/rstb.2017.0125
Hartmann, M., Mast, F. W., & Fischer, M. H. (2015). Counting is a spatial process: Evidence from eye movements. Psychological Research, 80(3), 399–409. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-015-0722-5 .
doi: 10.1007/s00426-015-0722-5
pubmed: 26608732
Hung, Y.-H., Hung, D. L., Tzeng, O. J.-L., & Wu, D. H. (2008). Flexible spatial mapping of different notations of numbers in Chinese readers. Cognition, 106, 1441–1450.
doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.04.017
Ito, Y., & Hatta, T. (2004). Spatial structure of quantitative representation of numbers: Evidence from the SNARC effect. Memory & Cognition, 32(4), 662–673. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03195857 .
doi: 10.3758/bf03195857
Jarosz, A. F., & Wiley, J. (2014). What are the odds? A practical guide to computing and reporting Bayes factors. The Journal of Problem Solving, 7, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.7771/1932-6246.1167 .
doi: 10.7771/1932-6246.1167
Knops, A. (2018). Neurocognitive evidence for spatial contributions to numerical cognition. In A. Henik & W. Fias (Eds.), Heterogeneity of Function in Numerical Cognition (pp. 211–232). Cambridge: Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-811529-9.00011-X .
doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-811529-9.00011-X
Li, M., Liu, D., Li, M., Dong, W., Huang, Y., & Chen, Q. (2018). Addition and subtraction but not multiplication and division cause shifts of spatial attention. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2018.00183 .
doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2018.00183
pubmed: 30687052
pmcid: 6306625
Liu, D., Cai, D., Verguts, T., & Chen, Q. (2017). The time course of spatial attention shifts in elementary arithmetic. Scientific Reports. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-01037-3 .
doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-01037-3
pubmed: 29273785
pmcid: 5741762
Masson, M. E. J. (2011). A tutorial on a practical Bayesian alternative to null-hypothesis significance testing. Behavioral Research Methods, 43, 679–690. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-010-0049-5 .
doi: 10.3758/s13428-010-0049-5
Masson, N., & Pesenti, M. (2014). Attentional bias induced by solving simple and complex addition and subtraction problems. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67(8), 1514–1526. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2014.903985 .
doi: 10.1080/17470218.2014.903985
Mathieu, R., Epinat-Duclos, J., Léone, J., Fayol, M., Thevenot, C., & Prado, J. (2018). Hippocampal spatial mechanisms relate to the development of arithmetic symbol processing in children. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 30, 324–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2017.06.001 .
doi: 10.1016/j.dcn.2017.06.001
pubmed: 28648549
Mathieu, R., Epinat-Duclos, J., Sigovan, M., Breton, A., Cheylus, A., Fayol, M., & Prado, J. (2017). What’s behind a “+” sign? Perceiving an arithmetic operator recruits brain circuits for spatial orienting. Cerebral Cortex, 28(5), 1673–1684. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhx064 .
doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhx064
Mathieu, R., Gourjon, A., Couderc, A., Thevenot, C., & Prado, J. (2016). Running the number line: Rapid shifts of attention in single-digit arithmetic. Cognition, 146, 229–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2015.10.002 .
doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2015.10.002
pubmed: 26468757
McCrink, K., Dehaene, S., & Dehaene-Lambertz, G. (2007). Moving along the number line: Operational momentum in nonsymbolic arithmetic. Perception & Psychophysics, 69(8), 1324–1333. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03192949 .
doi: 10.3758/bf03192949
Nathoo, F. S., & Masson, M. E. J. (2016). Bayesian alternatives to null-hypothesis significance testing for repeated-measures designs. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 72, 144–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmp.2015.03.003 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jmp.2015.03.003
Pinhas, M., & Fischer, M. H. (2008). Mental movements without magnitude? A study of spatial biases in symbolic arithmetic. Cognition, 109, 408–415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2008.09.003 .
doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.09.003
pubmed: 18976986
Pinhas, M., Shaki, S., & Fischer, M. H. (2015). Addition goes where the big numbers are: evidence for a reversed operational momentum effect. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22, 993–1000. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-014-0786-z .
doi: 10.3758/s13423-014-0786-z
Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2012). E-Prime user’s guide. Pittsburgh: Psychology Software Tools Inc.
Seyler, D. J., Kirk, E. P., & Ashcraft, M. H. (2003). Elementary subtraction. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 1339–1352.
doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.29.6.1339
Shaki, S., Fischer, M. H., & Petrusic, W. M. (2009). Reading habits for both words and numbers contribute to the SNARC effect. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16(2), 328–331. https://doi.org/10.3758/pbr.16.2.328 .
doi: 10.3758/pbr.16.2.328
Shaki, S., Pinhas, M., & Fischer, M. H. (2018). Heuristics and biases in mental arithmetic: revisiting and reversing operational momentum. Thinking & Reasoning, 24(2), 138–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2017.1348987 .
doi: 10.1080/13546783.2017.1348987
Spalek, T. M., & Hammad, S. (2005). The left-to-light bias in inhibition of return is due to the direction of reading. Psychological Science, 16, 15–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.00774.x .
doi: 10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.00774.x
pubmed: 15660846
The jamovi project. (2020). jamovi. (Version 1.2) https://www.jamovi.org .
Viarouge, A., Hubbard, E. M., & Dehaene, S. (2014). The organization of spatial reference frames involved in the SNARC effect. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67, 1484–1499. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2014.897358 .
doi: 10.1080/17470218.2014.897358
Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2007). A practical solution to the pervasive problems of p values. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 779–804. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194105 .
doi: 10.3758/BF03194105
Walsh, V. (2003). A theory of magnitude: Common cortical metrics of time, space and quantity. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(11), 483–488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2003.09.002 .
doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2003.09.002
pubmed: 14585444
pmcid: 14585444
Wiemers, M., Bekkering, H., & Lindemann, O. (2014). Spatial interferences in mental arithmetic: Evidence from the motion-arithmetic compatibility effect. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67, 1557–1570. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2014.889180 .
doi: 10.1080/17470218.2014.889180
pubmed: 24483946
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, 5, 165–190. https://doi.org/10.1163/1568537054068660 .
doi: 10.1163/1568537054068660
Zhu, R., You, X., Gan, S., & Wang, J. (2019). Spatial attentions shifts in addition and subtraction arithmetic: evidence of eye movement. Perception, 48, 835–849. https://doi.org/10.1177/0301006619865156 .
doi: 10.1177/0301006619865156
pubmed: 31324133
Zohar-Shai, B., Tzelgov, J., Karrni, A., & Rubinsten, O. (2017). It does exist! A left-to-right spatial–numerical association of response codes (SNARC) effect among native Hebrew speakers. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 43, 719–728. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000336 .
doi: 10.1037/xhp0000336
pubmed: 28182477