The role of parity, physical size, and magnitude in numerical cognition: The SNARC effect revisited

Fitousi, Daniel; Shaki, Samuel; Algom, Daniel

doi:10.3758/app.71.1.143

Cited by 41 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A much larger negative slope ( 200.67) of the regression line was supported by an improved goodness of fit [ intercept 292.653, r 2 .988; t(7) 6.8, p .0001]. Our results are thus consistent with the presence of a categorical component in judgments of magnitude much like that uncovered by Gevers et al (2006) and more recently by Fitousi, Shaki, and Algom (2009). Nevertheless, given (1) the reasonably good linear fit (explaining 90% of the variance), (2) the presence of this and even better values of fit with 14 of the individual participants), and (3) the need to consider noncategorical data in the other condition, we used the parameters of the linear fit for further analyses and comparisons.…”

Section: Stimuli and Apparatussupporting

confidence: 81%

Numbers and space: Associations and dissociations

Nathan

Shaki

Salti

et al. 2009

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

578Is 7 odd or even? The time it takes people to answer this simple question depends on the side of the response key used to indicate parity. People respond faster to 7 and to other large (single) numbers with a right-hand key but they respond faster to 3 and to other small numbers with a lefthand key. The presence of this spatial-numerical association of response codes (SNARC) has given currency to the idea that numerical magnitude is activated in an automatic manner whenever a numeral is presented for any purpose (note that retrieval of numerical magnitude is not strictly required for parity decision). In this study, we challenge the idea of a unique, automatic link between numbers and space and argue instead that an automatically activated link exists between relative (numerical) magnitude and spatial location. We first show that the widely accepted idea of an association between a particular number and a specific spatial location is based on a common confound between absolute and relative magnitude in existing SNARC studies. We then show that removing the confound results in the collapse of the traditional number-based SNARC effect but not of a relative-magnitude-based SNARC effect.The canonical experimental setup for assaying the SNARC effect entails manual performance of a task with numerals under alternative regimes of left-right key assignment. Under such conditions, the SNARC effect has been reported in a gamut of tasks-from parity decision (Dehaene, Bossini, & Giraux, 1993) to samedifferent judgments (Dehaene & Akhavein, 1995; but see Wood, Nuerk, & Willmes, 2006) to detecting the presence of a phoneme in the name of the digit (Fias, Brysbaert, Geypens, & d'Ydewalle, 1996) to bisection of lines composed of digits (Fischer, 2001) to finger-pointing the digit's location (Fischer, 2003) to judgments of numerical magnitude themselves (Gevers, Verguts, Reynvoet, Caessens, & Fias, 2006). Apart from the last measure, what is remarkable about these tasks is that none strictly requires retrieval of numerical magnitude for successful performance. However, in virtually all SNARC studies, the two properties of number, absolute and relative magnitude, were inextricably yoked. Is it absolute magnitude or relative magnitude that is associated with location in space?The difference between magnitude and relative magnitude (of, say, natural numbers) is subtle yet crucial for an understanding of the SNARC effect. The former notion is closely related to cardinal numbers, whereas the latter is closely related to ordinal numbers. The number 8 denotes a certain magnitude or numerosity (the first sense), but it also conveys the idea that 8 is larger than 5 or that it is smaller than 9 (the second sense). These two senses of number are confounded in existing research. Consider testing the SNARC effect with judgments of magnitude themselves (e.g., Gevers et al., 2006). In one block, the observer responds with the left-hand key when the presented number is smaller than 5 (the typical standard) and with the right-hand key when ...

show abstract

Section: Stimuli and Apparatussupporting

confidence: 81%

Numbers and space: Associations and dissociations

Nathan

Shaki

Salti

et al. 2009

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is therefore expected that this condition will give rise to facilitation (Algom & Fitousi, 2014;Garner & Felfoldy, 1970). Often, performance in the correlated block with integral dimensions benefits from the variability on the irrelevant dimension because the irrelevant dimension predicts the relevant dimension (Fitousi et al, 2009;Fitousi & Wenger, 2013;Amishav & Kimchi, 2010;Garner, 1974). In contrast, with misaligned faces neither Garner interference nor redundancy gains (i.e., indicating separability) should be observed.…”

Section: Summary and Predictionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Composite faces are not processed holistically: evidence from the Garner and redundant target paradigms

Fitousi

2015

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Composite faces fuse the top half of one face with the bottom half of another. These stimuli inflict a strong illusion of a novel face on their viewers, and are often considered to be processed holistically. The current study challenges this holistic view. Here I present provocative evidence from various classic attention paradigms such as the Garner (1974) and the redundant target (Miller, Cognitive Psychology, 14, 247-279, 1982; Townsend & Nozawa, Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 39, 321-359, 1995) tasks showing that face parts are perceived and processed in an analytic rather than holistic fashion. In Experiment 1, composite faces failed to exhibit Garner interference, indicating perfect selective attention to the constituent parts. In Experiments 2 and 3, composite faces failed to exhibit super-capacity with same-identity composites, demonstrating limited or unlimited capacity. This pattern is consistent with analytic perception. Taken together, the results cast serious doubts on the validity of the holistic processing approach. In many respects, the study proposes disillusionment from the composite face illusion. In addition, the study highlights the importance of converging operations, model testability, and individual differences in the study of faces.

show abstract

“…The spatial-numerical association of response codes (SNARC) effect (Dehaene, Bossini & Giraux, 1993;Fitousi, Shaki & Algom, 2009) refers to the robust finding that people make faster left-hand responses about small numbers versus large numbers, and faster right-hand responses for the reverse (Dehaene et al, 1993;Wood, Willmes, Nuerk & Fischer, 2008). This and similar 'SNARClike' effects for pitch (Rusconi, Kwan, Giordano, Umiltà & Butterworth, 2006), weight (Holmes & Lourenco, 2013) or even emotions (Holmes & Lourenco, 2011), provide support for ATOM (Bueti & Walsh, 2003).…”

Section: The Magnitude Accountmentioning

confidence: 99%