Does writing handedness affect neural representation of symbolic number? An fMRI adaptation study

Goffin, Celia; Sokolowski, H. Moriah; Slipenkyj, Michael; Ansari, Daniel

doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2019.07.017

Cited by 13 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This study set out to test functional lateralization of arithmetic processing in the parietal cortex. In the domain of numerical cognition, weak evidence was found for functional lateralization of basic number processing54 and our finding adds to this by showing functional lateralization of arithmetic processing. In this way, the functional…”

supporting

confidence: 57%

“…Thereby, we need to acknowledge that the power of the main finding in our study was not so high (power of 0.60). Nevertheless, when integrating the weak evidence of functional lateralization of basic number processing in general 54 together with the current finding of functional lateralization of arithmetic processing, there is cumulative evidence for the relation of handedness and lateralization in the IPS in the domain of numerical cognition, which would be a very important finding for neurocognitive models of numerical processing and beyond. However, we also wish to make clear that future research on lateralization in numerical cognition needs to substantiate these two findings by using better powered study designs, because the observed effects were not large.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 73%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Functional lateralization of arithmetic processing in the intraparietal sulcus is associated with handedness

Artemenko

Sitnikova

Soltanlou

et al. 2020

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Functional lateralization is established for various cognitive functions, but was hardly ever investigated for arithmetic processing. Most neurocognitive models assume a central role of the bilateral intraparietal sulcus (IPS) in arithmetic processing and there is some evidence for more pronounced left-hemispheric activation for symbolic arithmetic. However, evidence was mainly obtained by studies in right-handers. Therefore, we conducted a functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) study, in which IPS activation of left-handed adults was compared to right-handed adults in a symbolic approximate calculation task. The results showed that left-handers had a stronger functional right-lateralization in the IPS than right-handers. This finding has important consequences, as the bilateral IPS activation pattern for arithmetic processing seems to be shaped by functional lateralization and thus differs between left- and right-handers. We propose three possible accounts for the observed functional lateralization of arithmetic processing.

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 57%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 73%

Functional lateralization of arithmetic processing in the intraparietal sulcus is associated with handedness

Artemenko

Sitnikova

Soltanlou

et al. 2020

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Moreover, a number of studies reports ratio-dependent changes in the amount of BOLD signal in the intraparietal cortex when processing symbolic and nonsymbolic quantities (e.g., Cantlon, Brannon, Carter, & Pelphrey, 2006;Goffin, Sokolowski, Slipenkyj, & Ansari, 2019;He, Zhou, Zhou, He, & Chen, 2015;Holloway, Battista, Vogel, & Ansari, 2012;Piazza, Izard, Pinel, Le Bihan, & Dehaene, 2004;Vogel et al, 2017). Piazza and colleagues (Piazza, Pinel, Le Bihan, & Dehaene, 2007) presented evidence for such ratio-dependent changes within a single region across symbolic and nonsymbolic quantity presentation which supports the suggestion that the neuronal populations are at least partially shared for them.…”

Section: Generalized Analog Magnitude Representation Systemmentioning

confidence: 73%

Processing symbolic magnitude information conveyed by number words and by scalar adjectives

Kochari¹

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Humans not only process and compare magnitude information such as size, duration, and number perceptually, but they also communicate about these properties using language. In this respect, a relevant class of lexical items are so-called scalar adjectives like ‘big’, ‘long’, ‘loud’, etc. which refer to magnitude information. It has been proposed that humans use an amodal and abstract representation format shared by different dimensions, called the generalized magnitude system (GMS). In this paper, we test the hypothesis that scalar adjectives are symbolic references to GMS representations, and, therefore, GMS gets involved in processing their meaning. Previously, a parallel hypothesis on the relation between number symbols and GMS representations has been tested with the size congruity paradigm. The results of these experiments showed interference between the processing of number symbols and the processing of physical (font-) size. In the first three experiments of the present study (total N=150), we used the size congruity paradigm and the same/different task to look at the potential interaction between physical size magnitude and numerical magnitude expressed by number words. In the subsequent three experiments (total N=149), we looked at a parallel potential interaction between physical size magnitude and scalar adjective meaning. In the size congruity paradigm we observed interference between the processing of the numerical value of number words and the meaning of scalar adjectives, on the one hand, and physical (font-) size, on the other had, when participants had to judge the number words or the adjectives (while ignoring physical size). No interference was obtained for the reverse situation, i.e. when participants judged the physical font size (while ignoring numerical value or meaning). The results of the same/different task for both number words and scalar adjectives strongly suggested that the interference that was observed in the size congruity paradigm was likely due to a response conflict at the decision stage of processing rather than due to the recruitment of GMS representations. Taken together, it can be concluded that the size congruity paradigm does not provide evidence in support the hypothesis that GMS representations are used in the processing of number words or scalar adjectives. Nonetheless, the hypothesis we put forward about scalar adjectives is still is a promising potential line of research. We make a number of suggestions for how this hypothesis can be explored in future studies.

show abstract

“…When considering the involvement of brain mechanisms, those processing number symbols have to get involved in order for these quantifiers to be understood and produced. Since we know more about number symbol processing, we have specific predictions about the mechanisms that should be involved in their processing; for example, at the neuronal level, we expect to observe the involvement of neuronal populations in the intraparietal cortex (Arsalidou & Taylor, 2011; Goffin, Sokolowski, Slipenkyj, & Ansari, 2019; Holloway, Battista, Vogel, & Ansari, 2012; Notebaert, Nelis, & Reynvoet, 2010; Notebaert, Pesenti, & Reynvoet, 2010; Sokolowski & Ansari, 2016; Sokolowski, Fias, Mousa, & Ansari, 2017; Vogel et al., 2017). In this sense, this class of quantifiers may sometimes function as a good baseline for seeing the participation of quantity processing mechanisms in the case of other quantifiers.…”

Section: Preliminariesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Questions About Quantifiers: Symbolic and Nonsymbolic Quantity Processing by the Brain

Szymanik,

Kochari,

Bremnes

2023

Cognitive Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One approach to understanding how the human cognitive system stores and operates with quantifiers such as “some,” “many,” and “all” is to investigate their interaction with the cognitive mechanisms for estimating and comparing quantities from perceptual input (i.e., nonsymbolic quantities). While a potential link between quantifier processing and nonsymbolic quantity processing has been considered in the past, it has never been discussed extensively. Simultaneously, there is a long line of research within the field of numerical cognition on the relationship between processing exact number symbols (such as “3” or “three”) and nonsymbolic quantity. This accumulated knowledge can potentially be harvested for research on quantifiers since quantifiers and number symbols are two different ways of referring to quantity information symbolically. The goal of the present review is to survey the research on the relationship between quantifiers and nonsymbolic quantity processing mechanisms and provide a set of research directions and specific questions for the investigation of quantifier processing.

show abstract

Does writing handedness affect neural representation of symbolic number? An fMRI adaptation study

Cited by 13 publications

References 49 publications

Functional lateralization of arithmetic processing in the intraparietal sulcus is associated with handedness

Functional lateralization of arithmetic processing in the intraparietal sulcus is associated with handedness

Processing symbolic magnitude information conveyed by number words and by scalar adjectives

Questions About Quantifiers: Symbolic and Nonsymbolic Quantity Processing by the Brain

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About