A comes before B, like 1 comes before 2. Is the parietal cortex sensitive to ordinal relationships in both numbers and letters? An fMRI‐adaptation study

Goffin, Celia; Vogel, Stephan; Slipenkyj, Michael; Ansari, Daniel

doi:10.1002/hbm.24897

Cited by 12 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These findings are supported by researchers who have found similar response patterns for numbers and letters on a spatial mapping task [9,13]. However, see [14] for an alternative finding with brain imaging techniques. Indeed, a possible issue using letters to make inferences about numerical representations is that letters of the alphabet and numbers are often learned in a similar way (i.e., 1, 2, 3, and A, B, C are learned first in the number and letter sequences), and at a similar developmental stage, which may result in a similar representation for number and letter stimuli, and explain the results from studies comparing number and letter representations.…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 65%

Spatial complexity facilitates ordinal mapping with a novel symbol set

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The representation of number symbols is assumed to be unique, and not shared with other ordinal sequences. However, little research has examined if this is the case, or whether properties of symbols (such as spatial complexity) affect ordinal learning. Two studies were conducted to investigate if the property of spatial complexity affects learning ordinal sequences. In Study 1, 46 adults made a series of judgements about two novel symbol sets (Gibson and Sunú z). The goal was to find a novel symbol set that could be ordered by spatial complexity. In Study 2, 84 adults learned to order nine novel symbols (Sunú z) with a paired comparison task, judging which symbol was 'larger' (whereby the larger symbol became physically larger as feedback), and were then asked to rank the symbols. Participants were assigned to either a condition where there was a relationship between spatial complexity and symbol order, or a condition where there was a random relationship. Of interest was whether learning an ordered list of symbols would be facilitated by the spatial complexity of the novel symbols. Findings suggest spatial complexity affected learning ability, and that pairing spatial complexity with relational information can facilitate learning ordinal sequences. This suggests that the implicit cognitive representation of number may be a more general feature of ordinal lists, and not exclusive to number per se.

show abstract

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 65%

Spatial complexity facilitates ordinal mapping with a novel symbol set

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These domains involved serial order WM, numbers, letters and months (Fulbright et al 2003;Fias et al 2007;Ischebeck et al 2008;Attout et al 2014;Goffin and Ansari 2019). More precisely, the IPS appears to be sensitive to both, standard and ordinal distance effects with disctinct activation for far numerical/positional distances vs. close numerical/positional distances during number processing tasks (Nieder 2005;Knops and Willmes 2013;Lyons and Beilock 2013;Matejko et al 2019;Goffin et al 2020) as well as in WM tasks (Marshuetz et al 2000;Attout et al 2014), respectively. Fias et al (2007) directly compared distance effects for a number magnitude comparison task and a letter order judgment task showing the specific involvement of the horizontal segment of the IPS for both tasks.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Neural Representation of Ordinal Information: Domain-Specific or Domain-General?

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ordinal processing allows for the representation of the sequential relations between stimuli and is a fundamental aspect of different cognitive domains such as verbal working memory (WM), language and numerical cognition. Several studies suggest common ordinal coding mechanisms across these different domains but direct between-domain comparisons of ordinal coding are rare and have led to contradictory evidence. This fMRI study examined the commonality of ordinal representations across the WM, the number, and the letter domains by using a multivoxel pattern analysis approach and by focusing on triplet stimuli associated with robust ordinal distance effects. Neural patterns in fronto-parietal cortices distinguished ordinal distance in all domains. Critically, between-task predictions of ordinal distance in fronto-parietal cortices were robust between serial order WM, alphabetical order judgment but not when involving the numerical order judgment tasks. Moreover, frontal ROIs further supported between-task prediction of distance for the luminance judgment control task, the serial order WM, and the alphabetical tasks. These results suggest that common neural substrates characterize processing of ordinal information in WM and alphabetical but not numerical domains. This commonality, particularly in frontal cortices, may however reflect attentional control processes involved in judging ordinal distances rather than the intervention of domain-general ordinal codes.

show abstract

“…The notion of a direct link from non-symbolic to symbolic is challenged by the hypothesis that number symbols are not necessarily inextricably tied to non-symbolic quantities. resents findings indicate that symbolic and non-symbolic abilities show different developmental trajectories in the first year of schooling but not a unidirectional relationship (Matejko & Ansari, 2016) and even divergent patterns of representation at the neural level (Goffin & Vogel, Slipenkyj & Ansari, 2020).…”

Section: Domain-specific Tools: Ans and Otsmentioning

confidence: 78%