Loudness Counts: Interactions between Loudness, Number Magnitude, and Space

Abstract

ATOM (a theory of magnitude) suggests that magnitude information of different formats (numbers, space, and time) is processed within a generalized magnitude network. In this study we investigated whether loudness, as a possible indicator of intensity and magnitude, interacts with the processing of numbers. Small and large numbers, spoken in a quiet and a loud voice, were simultaneously presented to the left and right ear (Experiments 1a and 1b). Participants judged whether the number presented to the left or right ear was louder or larger. Responses were faster when the smaller number was spoken in a quiet voice, and the larger number in a loud voice. Thus, task-irrelevant numerical information influenced the processing of loudness and vice versa. This bi-directional link was also confirmed by classical SNARC paradigms (spatial-numerical association of response codes; Experiments 2a-2c) when participants again judged the magnitude or loudness of separately presented stimuli. In contrast, no loudness-number association was found in a parity judgment task. Regular SNARC effects were found in the magnitude and parity judgment task, but not in the loudness judgment task. Instead, in the latter task, response side was associated with loudness. Possible explanations for these results are discussed.

The Relational SNARC: Spatial Representation of Nonsymbolic Ratios

“…However, the use of ratio magnitudes in this study represents a major departure from previous nonsymbolic studies involving associations of space and magnitude. Previous studies have involved quantities with stand‐alone magnitudes: the numerosity of dice (Nuerk, Wood, & Willmes, ), the physical size or luminance of a disk (Fumarola et al, ; Ren, Nicholls, Ma, & Chen, ; Sellaro, Treccani, Job, & Cubelli, ), the loudness or pitch height of a tone (Hartmann & Mast, ; Lidji, Kolinsky, Lochy, & Morais, ; Ren et al, ; Rusconi, Kwan, Giordano, Umiltà, & Butterworth, ), or the angriness of an expression (Holmes & Lourenco, ). In the present case, however, the ratio magnitudes involved emerged from the relations between two components.…”

A SMARC Effect for Loudness

“…In many Western languages, loudness is conveyed by means of spatial terms (e.g., loud sounds are “high” and quiet sounds are “low”). In addition, evidence from some recent studies supports the view that loudness, as well as pitch, might be spatially represented ( Chang & Cho, 2015 ; Fernandez-Prieto et al., 2017 ; Hartmann & Mast, 2017 ). Therefore, here we expected that the variation of the probe intensity, with respect to a reference tone, would lead to higher performance (shorter RTs and fewer errors) in case of spatial compatibility between stimulus loudness (low vs. high) and response position (low placed vs. high placed).…”

“…In many Western languages, the loudness of sounds is conveyed “spatially”: Loud sounds are “high,” whereas quiet sounds are “low.” However, in comparison to pitch, little is known about whether loudness might also be spatially represented and, if yes, how this representation might influence response selection. The possible spatial representation of loudness (i.e., a SMARC effect for loudness) has been investigated in three studies (i.e., Chang & Cho, 2015 ; Hartmann & Mast, 2017 ; Fernandez-Prieto, Spence, Pons, & Navarra, 2017 ). Hartmann and Mast ( 2017 , Experiment 2c) presented recordings of single digits at a high (or low) intensity and asked participants to respond with a left or right keyboard key whether the digit was quiet or loud.…”

Evidence of SQUARC and distance effects in a weight comparison task

“…In particular, the SNARC effect would be a specific case of a spatial-quantity association of response codes (SQUARC) effect. In this regard, evidence for a SQUARC effect emerged for non-numerical dimensions like loudness (Bruzzi et al 2017;Chang and Cho 2015;Hartmann and Mast 2017), luminance (Fumarola et al 2014;Ren et al 2011) and time (Vallesi et al 2008). For instance, in Chang and Cho (2015), participants decided whether the loudness of a target tone was either lower or higher as compared to a reference tone.…”