2022
DOI: 10.1101/2022.03.07.482213
|View full text |Cite
Preprint
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Processing Stage Flexibility of the SNARC effect: Task Relevance or Magnitude Relevance?

Abstract: Previous studies have shown that the processing stage of the spatial-numerical association of response codes (SNARC) effect was flexible. Two recent studies by Nan et al. (2021) and Yan et al. (2021) used the same experimental paradigm to check whether the SNARC effect occurred in the semantic-representation stage but reached contradictory conclusions, showing that the SNARC effect was influenced by a magnitude Stroop effect in a magnitude comparison task but not by a parity Stroop effect in a parity judgment … Show more

Help me understand this report
View published versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

1
0
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 63 publications
(138 reference statements)
1
0
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Presumably, participants with a greater ability to inhibit the gender-space line (and associated responses) will be more efficient to respond to the actual demands of the task, compared to those with lower cognitive inhibition ability (or efficiency), who showed a stronger gender-space association effect. This response pattern would be in line with the above-mentioned works (see also Hoffmann et al, 2014;Georges et al, 2018;Xiang et al, 2022).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 90%
“…Presumably, participants with a greater ability to inhibit the gender-space line (and associated responses) will be more efficient to respond to the actual demands of the task, compared to those with lower cognitive inhibition ability (or efficiency), who showed a stronger gender-space association effect. This response pattern would be in line with the above-mentioned works (see also Hoffmann et al, 2014;Georges et al, 2018;Xiang et al, 2022).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 90%