Abstract
In three experiments, we explored whether number words are grounded in a nonsymbolic representation of numerosity. We used a sentence–picture verification task, where participants are required to check whether the concept given in a sentence corresponds to the subsequently presented object. We concurrently manipulated numerical congruency by orthogonally varying the number word attached to the concept and the quantity of objects. The number words and numerosities varied from one to four in Experiment 1 and from six to nine in Experiment 2. In Experiment 3, we employed number words six and eight with the constraint that, in the incongruent condition, a constant number-to-numerosity ratio of 2:1 was used. In Experiment 1, we found that participants were faster and more efficient when concept-object matches were accompanied by numerical congruency relative to incongruency. On the other hand, no such difference was observed in Experiments 2 and 3 for numbers falling outside of the subitization range. The results are consistent with the hypothesis that number words from one to four are grounded in a nonsymbolic representation of the size of small sets.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abrahamse, E., van Dijck, J.-P., & Fias, W. (2016). How does working memory enable number-induced spatial biases? Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00977.
Agrillo, C. (2013). One vs. two non-symbolic numerical systems? Looking to the ATOM theory for clues to the mystery. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00073.
Anobile, G., Cicchini, G. M., & Burr, D. C. (2015). Number as a primary perceptual attribute: A review. Perception, 45, 5–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/0301006615602599.
Berent, I., Pinker, S., Tzelgov, J., Bibi, U., & Goldfarb, L. (2005). Computation of semantic number from morphological information. Journal of Memory and Language, 53, 342–358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2005.05.002.
Burr, D. C., Turi, M., & Anobile, G. (2010). Subitizing but not estimation of numerosity requires attentional resources. Journal of Vision, 10, 20. https://doi.org/10.1167/10.6.20.
Butterworth, B. (2010). Foundational numerical capacities and the origins of dyscalculia. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14(12), 534–541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2010.09.007.
Carey, S. (2011). The origin of concepts: A précis. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34, 113–167. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X10000919.
Choo, H., & Franconeri, S. L. (2014). Enumeration of small collections violates Weber’s law. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21, 93–99. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-013-0474-4.
Conway, B. R. (2009). Color vision, cones, and color-coding in the cortex. The Neuroscientist, 15, 274–290. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073858408331369.
Cousineau, D. (2005). Confidence intervals in within-subject designs: A simpler solution to Loftus and Masson’s method. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 1, 42–45. https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.01.1.p042.
Cutini, S., Scatturin, P., Basso Moro, S., & Zorzi, M. (2014). Are the neural correlates of subitizing and estimation dissociable? An fNIRS investigation. Neuroimage, 85, 391–399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.08.027.
Dehaene, S. (1997). The number sense. New York: Oxford University Press.
Dehaene, S. (2009). Origins of mathematical intuitions: The case of arithmetic. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1156(1), 232–259. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.04469.x.
Dehaene, S., Bossini, S., & Giraux, P. (1993). The mental representation of parity and number magnitude. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122, 371–396. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.122.3.371.
Di Maio, V., & Lansky, P. (1990). Area perception in simple geometrical figures. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 71, 459–466. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1990.71.2.459.
Dienes, Z. (2014). Using Bayes to get the most out of non-significant results. Frontiers in Psycholology, 5, 781. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00781.
Dienes, Z., & McLatchie, N. (2018). Four reasons to prefer Bayesian over significance testing. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25, 207–218. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-017-1266-z.
Domijan, D., & Šetić, M. (2016). Resonant dynamics of grounded cognition: Explanation of behavioral and neuroimaging data using the ART neural network. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 139. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00139.
Eayrs, J., & Lavie, N. (2018). Establishing individual differences in perceptual capacity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 44, 1240–1257. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000530.
Feigenson, L., Dehaene, S., & Spelke, E. (2004). Core systems of number. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(7), 307–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2004.05.002.
Fias, W. (2001). Two routes for the processing of verbal numbers: Evidence from the SNARC effect. Psychological Research, 65, 250–259. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004260100065.
Fias, W., & van Dijck, J. P. (2016). The temporary nature of number-space interactions. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70, 33–40. https://doi.org/10.1037/cep0000071.
Fischer, M. H., & Shaki, S. (2014). Spatial associations in numerical cognition: From single digits to arithmetic. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67, 1461–1483. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2014.927515.
Fischer, M. H., & Shaki, S. (2018). Number concepts: Abstract and embodied. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 373, 20170125. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2017.0125.
Gelman, R., & Butterworth, B. (2005). Number and language: How are they related? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(1), 6–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2004.11.004.
Gevers, W., Reynvoet, B., & Fias, W. (2003). The mental representation of ordinal sequences is spatially organised. Cognition, 87, B87–B95. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0010-0277(02)00234-2.
Gevers, W., Santens, S., Dhooge, E., Chen, Q., Van den Bossche, L., Fias, W., & Verguts, T. (2010). Verbal-spatial and visuo-spatial coding of number-space interactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 139, 180–190. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017688.
Göbel, S. M., Watson, S. E., Lervåg, A., & Hulme, C. (2014). Children’s arithmetic development: It is number knowledge, not the approximate number sense, that counts. Psychological Science, 25(3), 789–798. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613516471.
Grossberg, S. (2013). Adaptive resonance theory: How a brain learns to consciously attend, learn, and recognize a changing world. Neural Networks, 37, 1–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neunet.2012.09.017.
Hochstein, S., & Ahissar, M. (2002). View from the top: Hierarchies and reverse hierarchies in the visual system. Neuron, 36, 791–804. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0896-6273(02)01091-7.
Huber, S., Nuerk, H.-C., Willmes, K., & Moeller, K. (2016). A general model framework for multisymbol number comparison. Psychological Review, 123, 667–695. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000040.
Hutchinson, S., & Louwerse, M. M. (2014). Language statistics explain the spatial-numerical association of response codes. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21, 470–478. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-013-0492-2.
Hyde, D. C. (2011). Two systems of non-symbolic numerical cognition. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2011.00150.
Izard, V., Pica, P., Spelke, E., & Dehaene, S. (2008). Exact equality and successor function: Two key concepts on the path towards understanding exact numbers. Philosophical Psychology, 21, 491–505. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515080802285354.
Kadosh, R. C., Lammertyn, J., & Izard, V. (2008). Are numbers special? An overview of chronometric, neuroimaging, developmental and comparative studies of magnitude representation. Progress in Neurobiology, 84, 132–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pneurobio.2007.11.001.
Krajcsi, A., Lengyel, G., & Kojouharova, P. (2016). The source of the symbolic numerical distance and size effects. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1795. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01795.
Krajcsi, A., Lengyel, G., & Kojouharova, P. (2018). Symbolic number comparison is not processed by the analog number system: Different symbolic and non-symbolic numerical distance and size effects. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 124. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00124.
Le Corre, M., & Carey, S. (2007). One, two, three, four, nothing more: An investigation of the conceptual sources of the verbal counting principles. Cognition, 105, 395–438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2006.10.005.
Leibovich, T., & Ansari, D. (2016). The symbol-grounding problem in numerical cognition: A review of theory, evidence and outstanding questions. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70, 12–23. https://doi.org/10.1037/cep0000070.
Leibovich, T., & Henik, A. (2013). Magnitude processing in non-symbolic stimuli. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 375. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00375.
Leibovich, T., Katzin, N., Harel, M., & Henik, A. (2017). From ‘sense of number’ to ‘sense of magnitude’: The role of continuous magnitudes in numerical cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 40, 1–62. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x16000960.
Li, Y., Zhang, M., Chen, Y., Deng, Z., Zhu, X., & Yan, S. (2018). Children’s non-symbolic and symbolic numerical representations and their associations with mathematical ability. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1035. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01035.
Lyons, I. M., & Ansari, D. (2015). Foundations of children’s numerical and mathematical skills: The roles of symbolic and nonsymbolic representations of numerical magnitude. Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 48, 93–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.acdb.2014.11.003.
Lyons, I. M., Ansari, D., & Beilock, S. L. (2012). Symbolic estrangement: Evidence against a strong association between numerical symbols and the quantities they represent. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141, 635–641. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027248.
Lyons, I. M., Nuerk, H.-C., & Ansari, D. (2015). Rethinking the implications of numerical ratio effects for understanding the development of representational precision and numerical processing across formats. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(5), 1021–1035. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000094.
Mahon, B. Z., & Hickok, G. (2016). Arguments about the nature of concepts: Symbols, embodiment, and beyond. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23, 941–958. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-016-1045-2.
Mandler, G., & Shebo, B. J. (1982). Subitizing: An analysis of its component processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 111, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.111.1.1.
Mazza, V., Pagano, S., & Caramazza, A. (2013). Multiple object individuation and exact enumeration. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 25, 697–705. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00349.
Morey, R. D. (2008). Confidence intervals from normalized data: A correction to Cousineau (2005). Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 4, 61–64. https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.04.2.p061.
Morey, R. D., & Rouder, J. N. (2018). BayesFactor: Computation of Bayes factors for common designs. R package version 0.9.12-2. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=BayesFactor.
Mou, Y., & vanMarle, K. (2014). Two core systems of numerical representation in infants. Developmental Review, 34, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2013.11.001.
Moyer, R. S., & Landauer, T. K. (1967). Time required for judgments of numerical inequality. Nature, 215, 1519–1520. https://doi.org/10.1038/2151519a0.
Moyer, R. S., & Landauer, T. K. (1973). Determinants of reaction time for digit inequality judgments. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 1, 167–168. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03334328.
Nickels, L., Biedermann, B., Fieder, N., & Schiller, N. O. (2015). The lexical-syntactic representation of number. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30, 287–304. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2013.879191.
Patson, N. D., George, G., & Warren, T. (2014). The conceptual representation of number. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67, 1349–1365. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2013.863372.
Pavese, A., & Umiltà, C. (1998). Symbolic distance between numerosity and identity modulates Stroop interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 1535–1545. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.24.5.1535.
Pavese, A., & Umiltà, C. (1999). Further evidence on the effects of symbolic distance on Stroop-like interference. Psychological Research, 62, 62–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004260050040.
Piazza, M. (2010). Neurocognitive start-up tools for symbolic number representations. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14(12), 542–551. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2010.09.008.
Piazza, M., Fumarola, A., Chinello, A., & Melcher, D. (2011). Subitizing reflects visuo-spatial object individuation capacity. Cognition, 121, 147–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.Cognition.2011.05.007.
Pollatsek, A., & Well, A. D. (1995). On the use of counterbalanced designs in cognitive research: A suggestion for a better and more powerful analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 785–794. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.21.3.785.
Proctor, R. W., & Cho, Y. S. (2006). Polarity correspondence: A general principle for performance of speeded binary classification tasks. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 416–442. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.3.416.
Revkin, S. K., Piazza, M., Izard, V., Cohen, L., & Dehaene, S. (2008). Does subitizing reflect numerical estimation? Psychological Science, 19, 607–614. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02130.x.
Reynvoet, B., & Sasanguie, D. (2016). The symbol grounding problem revisited: A thorough evaluation of the ANS mapping account and the proposal of an alternative account based on symbol-symbol associations. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1581. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01581.
Rossion, B., & Pourtois, G. (2004). Revisiting Snodgrass and Vanderwart’s object databank: The role of surface detail in basic level object recognition. Perception, 33, 217–236. https://doi.org/10.1068/p5117.
Santens, S., & Gevers, W. (2008). The SNARC effect does not imply a mental number line. Cognition, 108, 263–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2008.01.002.
Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002). E-Prime user’s guide. Pittsburgh: Psychology Software Tools.
Šetić, M., & Domijan, D. (2017). Numerical congruency effect in the sentence-picture verification task. Experimental Psychology, 64, 159–169. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000358.
Shaki, S., & Fischer, M. H. (2018). Deconstructing spatial-numerical associations. Cognition, 175, 109–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.02.022.
Siegler, R. S., & Opfer, J. E. (2003). The development of numerical estimation: Evidence for multiple representations of numerical quantity. Psychological Science, 14(3), 237–243. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.02438.
Sokolowski, H. M., Fias, W., Mousa, A., & Ansari, D. (2017). Common and distinct brain regions in both parietal and frontal cortex support symbolic and nonsymbolic number processing in humans: A functional neuroimaging meta-analysis. Neuroimage, 146, 376–394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.10.028.
Stanfield, R. A., & Zwaan, R. A. (2001). The effect of implied orientation derived from verbal context on picture recognition. Psychological Science, 12, 153–156. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00326.
R Core Team (2019). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna: Austria. https://www.R-project.org/.
Trick, L. M., & Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1994). Why are small and large numbers enumerated differently? A limited-capacity preattentive stage in vision. Psychological Review, 101, 80–102. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.101.1.80.
Verguts, T., Fias, W., & Stevens, M. (2005). A model of exact small-number representation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 66–80. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03196349.
Wood, G., Willmes, K., Nuerk, H.-C., & Fischer, M. H. (2008). On the cognitive link between space and number: A meta-analysis of the SNARC effect. Psychology Science, 50, 489–525.
Zwaan, R. A., Stanfield, R. A., & Yaxley, R. H. (2002). Do language comprehenders routinely represent the shapes of objects? Psychological Science, 13, 168–171. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00430.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by the Catholic University of Croatia under the Grant HKS-2018-5: Cognitive processes in numerical and tactical decision-making tasks, and the University of Rijeka under the Grant uniri-drustv-18-177.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declared that they had no conflicts of interest with respect to their authorship or the publication of this article.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Šetić Beg, M., Čičko, J. & Domijan, D. Symbol grounding of number words in the subitization range. Psychological Research 85, 720–733 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-019-01265-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-019-01265-4