Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Endogenous attention modulates automaticity of number processing

  • Brief Report
  • Published:
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Numerals (i.e., symbolic representations of numerical magnitude) are widespread in our environment and are fundamental to many decisions we make. It has been suggested that the processing of numerical magnitude is automatic. Various robust psychological effects, such as the distance effect (Moyer & Landauer, Nature, 215 (5109), 1519-1520, 1967) and the physical size-congruity effect (SiCE; Henik & Tzelgov, Memory & Cognition, 10 (4), 389-395, 1982), support this claim. Importantly, these effects demonstrate that the processing of numerical magnitude occurs unintentionally and while irrelevant to the task. These aspects often serve as criteria to assess the automatic nature of mental processes. However, evidence for the involvement of attention in the processing of magnitude of numerals somewhat subverts the automaticity account that was originally put forward. To reconcile between evidence in support of the automaticity account and evidence that compromises this account, we drew on another account of automaticity. This account distinguishes between strongly automatic and partly automatic mental processes based on their susceptibility to attentional influences. In the current study, we manipulated endogenous attention while participants completed numerical and physical comparisons of numerals, separately. We observed modulations of the SiCE for physical comparisons but not for numerical comparisons of numerals. That is, the processing of numerical magnitude when irrelevant was subjected to attentional influences, but the processing of their physical magnitude (i.e., size) was not. Therefore, we concluded that processing the numerical magnitude is partly automatic, whereas processing their physical magnitude is strongly automatic.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Arend, I., & Henik, A. (2015). Choosing the larger versus choosing the smaller: Asymmetries in the size congruity effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41, 1821–1830.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ashkenazi, S., Rubinsten, O., & Henik, A. (2009). Attention, automaticity, and developmental dyscalculia. Neuropsychology, 23(4), 535–540.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bargh, J. A. (1994). The four horsemen of automaticity: Intention, awareness, efficiency, and control as separate issues. In R. S. Wyer Jr. & T. K. Srull (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition (pp. 1–40). Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Besner, D., & Coltheart, M. (1979). Ideographic and alphabetic processing in skilled reading of English. Neuropsychologia, 17(5), 467–472.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Erlbaum.

  • Cohen Kadosh, R., Henik, A., & Rubinsten, O. (2008). Are Arabic and verbal numbers processed in different ways? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34(6), 1377–1391.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dehaene, S. (1992). Varieties of numerical abilities. Cognition, 44(1-2), 1–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dehaene, S. (1996). The organization of brain activations in number comparison: Event-related potentials and the additive-factors method. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 8, 47–68.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dehaene, S. (1997). The number sense. Oxford University Press.

  • Dehaene, S., & Akhavein, R. (1995). Attention, automaticity, and levels of representation in number processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21(2), 314–326.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, E. M., & McFarland, C. E. (1980). Isolating the effects of symbolic distance, and semantic congruity in comparative judgments: An additive-factors analysis. Memory & Cognition, 8(6), 612–622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ganor-Stern, D., & Tzelgov, J. (2008). Across-notation automatic numerical processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34(2), 430–437.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Goldfarb, L., & Tzelgov, J. (2005). Is size perception based on monocular distance cues computed automatically? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12(4), 751–754.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldsmith, M., & Yeari, M. (2003). Modulation of object-based attention by spatial focus under endogenous and exogenous orienting. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29(5), 897–918.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Henik, A., & Tzelgov, J. (1982). Is three greater than five: The relation between physical and semantic size in comparison tasks. Memory & Cognition, 10(4), 389–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., & Chajczyk, D. (1983). Tests of the automaticity of reading: dilution of Stroop effects by color-irrelevant stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 9(4), 497–509.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6(2), 293–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leibovich, T., Diesendruck, L., Rubinsten, O., & Henik, A. (2013). The importance of being relevant: Modulation of magnitude representations. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, Article 369.

  • Logan, G. D. (1988). Toward an instance theory of automatization. Psychological Review, 95(4), 492–527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maloney, E. A., Risko, E. F., Preston, F., Ansari, D., & Fugelsang, J. (2010). Challenging the reliability and validity of cognitive measures: The case of the numerical distance effect. Acta Psychologica, 134(2), 154–161.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mathôt, S., Schreij, D., & Theeuwes, J. (2012). OpenSesame: An open-source, graphical experiment builder for the social sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 44(2), 314–324.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Moors, A., & De Houwer, J. (2006). Automaticity: a theoretical and conceptual analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 132(2), 297–326.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Morin, R. E., DeRosa, D. V., & Stultz, V. (1967). Recognition memory and reaction time. Acta Psychologica, 27, 298–305.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Moyer, R. S., & Landauer, T. K. (1967). Time required for judgements of numerical inequality. Nature, 215(5109), 1519–1520.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Naparstek, S., & Henik, A. (2010). Count me in! On the automaticity of numerosity processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(4), 1053–1059.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Naparstek, S., & Henik, A. (2012). Laterality briefed: Laterality modulates performance in a numerosity-congruity task. Consciousness and Cognition, 21(1), 444–450.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Naparstek, S., Safadi, Z., Lichtenstein-Vidne, L., & Henik, A. (2015). Flanking magnitudes: Dissociation between numerosity and numerical value in a selective attention task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41(4), 1262–1268.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pavese, A., & Umiltà, C. (1998). Symbolic distance between numerosity and identity modulates Stroop interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24(5), 1535–1545.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pavese, A., & Umiltà, C. (1999). Further evidence on the effects of symbolic distance on Stroop-like interference. Psychological Research, 62(1), 62–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Posner, M. I., & Snyder, C. R. R. (2004). Attention and cognitive control. In D. A. Balota & E. J. Marsh (Eds.), Cognitive psychology: Key readings (pp. 205–223). Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rafal, R., & Henik, A. (1994). The neurology of inhibition: Integrating controlled and automatic processes. In D. Dagenbach & T. H. Carr (Eds.), Inhibitory processes in attention, memory and language (pp. 1–51). Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Risko, E. F., Maloney, E. A., & Fugelsang, J. A. (2013). Paying attention to attention: Evidence for an attentional contribution to the size congruity effect. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 75(6), 1137–1147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubinsten, O., & Henik, A. (2002). Is an ant larger than a lion? Acta Psychologica, 111(1), 141–154.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rubinsten, O., & Henik, A. (2005). Automatic activation of internal magnitudes: a study of developmental dyscalculia. Neuropsychology, 19(5), 641–648.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Santens, S., & Verguts, T. (2011). The size congruity effect: Is bigger always more? Cognition, 118(1), 94–110.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, W., & Heinze, H. J. (1998). On the interaction of numerical and size information in digit comparison: A behavioral and event-related potential study. Neuropsychologia, 36(11), 1167–1179.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, W., & Ischebeck, A. (2003). On the relative speed account of number-size interference in comparative judgments of numerals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29(3), 507–522.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Singmann, H., Bolker, B., Westfall, J., & Aust, F. (2015). afex: Analysis of factorial experiments. R package version, 0, 13–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sobel, K. V., Puri, A. M., & Faulkenberry, T. J. (2016). Bottom-up and top-down attentional contributions to the size congruity effect. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 78(5), 1324–1336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg, S. (1969). The discovery of processing stages: Extension of Donders’ method. Acta Psychologica, 30, 276–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sudevan, P., & Taylor, D. A. (1987). The cuing and priming of cognitive operations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 13(1), 89–103.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Szűcs, D., & Soltész, F. (2007). Event-related potentials dissociate facilitation and interference effects in the numerical Stroop paradigm. Neuropsychologia, 45(14), 3190–3202.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tzelgov, J. (1997). Automatic but conscious: That is how we act most of the time. Advances in Social Cognition, 10, 217–230.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tzelgov, J., & Ganor-Stern, D. (2005). Automaticity in processing ordinal information. In J. I. D. Campbell (Ed.), Handbook of mathematical cognition (pp. 55–66). Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tzelgov, J., Meyer, J., & Henik, A. (1992). Automatic and intentional processing of numerical information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18(1), 166–179.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wickham H (2016). ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. Springer-Verlag New York. ISBN 978-3-319-24277-4, https://ggplot2.tidyverse.org.

  • Zbrodoff, N. J., & Logan, G. D. (1986). On the autonomy of mental processes: A case study of arithmetic. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115(2), 118–130.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, P.O.B. 653, Beer-Sheva, Israel

    Aviv Avitan, Shir Wasserman & Avishai Henik

  2. The Zelman Center for Brain Science, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel

    Avishai Henik

Authors
  1. Aviv Avitan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shir Wasserman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Avishai Henik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aviv Avitan.

Ethics declarations

Not applicable.

Additional information

Open practices statement

The data and materials for our experiment are available via the Open Science Framework at https://osf.io/4fp9y/. This experiment was not preregistered.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

ESM 1

(DOCX 110 kb)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Avitan, A., Wasserman, S. & Henik, A. Endogenous attention modulates automaticity of number processing. Psychon Bull Rev (2024). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-023-02438-4

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-023-02438-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation