There’s a SNARC in the Size Congruity Task

Abstract

The size congruity effect involves interference between numerical magnitude and physical size of visually presented numbers: congruent numbers (either both small or both large in numerical magnitude and physical size) are responded to faster than incongruent ones (small numerical magnitude/large physical size or vice versa). Besides, numerical magnitude is associated with lateralized response codes, leading to the Spatial Numerical Association of Response Codes (SNARC) effect: small numerical magnitudes are preferably responded to on the left side and large ones on the right side. Whereas size congruity effects are ascribed to interference between stimulus dimensions in the decision stage, SNARC effects are understood as (in)compatibilities in stimulus-response combinations. Accordingly, size congruity and SNARC effects were previously found to be independent in parity and in physical size judgment tasks. We investigated their dependency in numerical magnitude judgment tasks. We obtained independent size congruity and SNARC effects in these tasks and replicated this observation for the parity judgment task. The results confirm and extend the notion that size congruity and SNARC effects operate in different representational spaces. We discuss possible implications for number representation.

Separate processing mechanisms for spatial–numerical compatibility and numerical-size congruity.

“…In contrast, if the magnitude-related processing associated with these two effects occurs separately and in parallel (Fitousi et al, 2009) and is only integrated during later response stages, then no such three-way interaction should be observed. Instead, the results of the present study should be similar to that of previous research (e.g., Fitousi et al, 2009;Weis et al, 2018), in that only twoway interactions between digit and physical size (i.e., a SiCE; Besner &…”

“…In their Experiment 1, the authors observed both SNARC effects and SiCEs co-occurring within the same binary forced-choice response task involving physical magnitude judgments. However, the authors noted that no three-way interaction that would suggest an association between these two effects was observed (i.e., an interaction between physical magnitude, numerical magnitude, and response location; for a discussion of the equivalence of this three-way interaction with an interaction between SNARC compatibility and size congruency see Weis et al, 2018). Similarly, Weis et al (2018) observed both SNARC effects and SiCEs within the same single-digit numerical magnitude judgment task (and also in a related parity judgment task), but failed to observe either the analogous three-way interaction or what they referred to as a spatial-size association of response codes (SSARC).…”

“…However, the authors noted that no three-way interaction that would suggest an association between these two effects was observed (i.e., an interaction between physical magnitude, numerical magnitude, and response location; for a discussion of the equivalence of this three-way interaction with an interaction between SNARC compatibility and size congruency see Weis et al, 2018). Similarly, Weis et al (2018) observed both SNARC effects and SiCEs within the same single-digit numerical magnitude judgment task (and also in a related parity judgment task), but failed to observe either the analogous three-way interaction or what they referred to as a spatial-size association of response codes (SSARC). Note that the latter SSARC effect would be characterized in terms of an interaction between the spatial location of the response and the physical size of the stimulus that emerges as a result of compatibility between the physical magnitude of the stimulus and the response location.…”

“…Hence, the goal of the present study is twofold. First, we aim to replicate the results of Fitousi et al (2009) and Weis et al (2018). Although both SNARC effects and SiCEs, in essence, rely upon congruity between one-dimensional aspect of the stimuli used (i.e., numerical magnitude) and another dimensional aspect within the experimental task (e.g., the left–right response arrangement used in the traditional SNARC paradigm, or the physical magnitude used in the traditional SiCE paradigm), the extent to which these relationships interact with each other has only been examined twice before and once for each type of physical and numerical judgment task.…”

“Few” or “Many”? An Adaptation Level Theory Account for Flexibility in Quantifier Processing

“…Finally, it should be noted that the present study only tapped into one small and very particular aspect of the processing of magnitudes and numerosities, which is the verbal coding and its match to underlying representations. These representations themselves, access to these representations, and behavioral effects associated with accessing the representations are in the focus of a wealth of other studies (see, e.g., Weis et al, 2018;Nikolaev et al, 2020). Such studies make use of paradigms similar to the one used in the present study in that speeded two-choice reaction tasks are used.…”