Abstract
While humans can readily access the common magnitude of various codes such as digits, number words, or dot sets, it remains unclear whether this process occurs automatically, or only when explicitly attending to magnitude information. We addressed this question by examining the neural distance effect, a robust marker of magnitude processing, with a frequency-tagging approach. Electrophysiological responses were recorded while participants viewed rapid sequences of a base numerosity presented at 6 Hz (e.g., “2”) in randomly mixed codes: digits, number words, canonical dot, and finger configurations. A deviant numerosity either close (e.g., “3”) or distant (e.g., “8”) from the base was inserted every five items. Participants were instructed to focus their attention either on the magnitude number feature (from a previous study), the parity number feature, a nonnumerical color feature or no specific feature. In the four attentional conditions, we found clear discrimination responses of the deviant numerosity despite its code variation. Critically, the distance effect (larger responses when base/deviant are distant than close) was present when participants were explicitly attending to magnitude and parity, but it faded with color and simple viewing instructions. Taken together, these results suggest automatic access to an abstract number representation but highlight the role of selective attention in processing the underlying magnitude information. This study therefore provides insights into how attention can modulate the neural activity supporting abstract magnitude processing.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bargh, J. A. (1992). The ecology of automaticity: Toward establishing the conditions needed to produce automatic processing effects. The American Journal of Psychology, 105(2), 181–199. https://doi.org/10.2307/1423027
Bargh, J. A. (1994). The four horsemen of automaticity: Awareness, intention, efficiency, and control in social cognition. In R. S. Wyer & T. K. Srull (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition: Basic processes; Applications (pp. 1–40). Erlbaum.
Bargh, J. A., Chaiken, S., Raymond, P., & Hymes, C. (1996). The automatic evaluation effect: Unconditional automatic attitude activation with a pronunciation task. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 32(1), 104–128. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1996.0005
Baudouin, J. Y., Poncet, F., Polinori, A., Rekow, D., Damon, F., Leleu, A., Faivre, L., & Baltenneck, N. (2023). Task-related modulation of facial expression processing: An FPVS-EEG study. Emotion. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0001223
Brown, H., & Prescott, R. (2015). Applied mixed models in medicine. John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118778210
Burr, D. C., Turi, M., & Anobile, G. (2010). Subitizing but not estimation of numerosity requires attentional resources. Journal of Vision, 10(6), 20. https://doi.org/10.1167/10.6.20
Cipora, K., Soltanlou, M., Reips, U. D., & Nuerk, H. C. (2019). The SNARC and MARC effects measured online: Large-scale assessment methods in flexible cognitive effects. Behavior Research Methods, 51, 1676–1692. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-019-01213-5
Cipora, K., Soltanlou, M., Smaczny, S., Melanie Goebel, S., & Nuerk, H.-C. (2021). Automatic place-value activation in magnitude irrelevant parity judgement. Psychological Research, 85(2), 777–792. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-019-01268-1
Cleland, A. A., & Bull, R. (2019). Automaticity of access to numerical magnitude and its spatial associations: The role of task and number representation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 45(2), 333–348. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000590
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. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013413
Damian, M. F. (2001). Congruity effects evoked by subliminally presented primes: Automaticity rather than semantic processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27(1), 154–165. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.27.1.154
Dehaene, S. (1996). The organization of brain activations in number comparison: Event-related potentials and the additive-factors method. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 8(1), 47–68. https://doi.org/10.1006/nimg.2001.0913
Dehaene, S., Bossini, S., & Giraux, P. (1993). The mental representation of parity and number magnitude. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122(3), 371–396. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.122.3.371
Dehaene, S., Changeux, J. P., Naccache, L., Sackur, J., & Sergent, C. (2006). Conscious, preconscious, and subliminal processing: A testable taxonomy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(5), 204–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.03.007
Dehaene, S., Dehaene-Lambertz, G., & Cohen, L. (1998). Abstract representations of numbers in the animal and human brain. Trends in Neurosciences, 21(8), 355–361. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0166-2236(98)01263-6
Didino, D., Breil, C., & Knops, A. (2019). The influence of semantic processing and response latency on the SNARC effect. Acta Psychologica, 196, 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2019.04.008
Ding, N., Pan, X., Luo, C., Su, N., Zhang, W., & Zhang, J. (2018). Attention is required for knowledge-based sequential grouping: Insights from the integration of syllables into words. Journal of Neuroscience, 38(5), 1178–1188. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2606-17.2017
Fias, W. (1996). The importance of magnitude information in numerical processing: Evidence from the SNARC effect. Mathematical Cognition, 2(1), 95–110. https://doi.org/10.1080/135467996387552
Guillaume, M., Poncin, A., Schiltz, C., & Van Rinsveld, A. (2020). Measuring spontaneous and automatic processing of magnitude and parity information of Arabic digits by frequency-tagging EEG. Scientific Reports, 10, Article 22254. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-79404-w
Grasso, P. A., Petrizzo, I., Caponi, C., Anobile, G., & Arrighi, R. (2022). Visual P2p component responds to perceived numerosity. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 16, Article 1014703. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2022.1014703
Holloway, I. D., Price, G. R., & Ansari, D. (2010). Common and segregated neural pathways for the processing of symbolic and nonsymbolic numerical magnitude: An fMRI study. NeuroImage, 49(1), 1006–1017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.07.071
Hyde, D. C., & Spelke, E. S. (2009). All numbers are not equal: an electrophysiological investigation of small and large number representations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21(6), 1039–1053. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2009.21090
Kunde, W., Kiesel, A., & Hoffmann, J. (2003). Conscious control over the content of unconscious cognition. Cognition, 88(2), 223–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(03)00023-4
Libertus, M. E., Woldorff, M. G., & Brannon, E. M. (2007). Electrophysiological evidence for notation independence in numerical processing. Behavioral and Brain Functions, 3, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1186/1744-9081-3-1
Littell, R. C., Milliken, G. A., Stroup, W. W., Wolfinger, R. D., & Schabenberger, O. (2006). SAS for mixed models. Cary, NC: SAS Institute.
Liu, R., Schunn, C. D., Fiez, J. A., & Libertus, M. E. (2018). The integration between nonsymbolic and symbolic numbers: Evidence from an EEG study. Brain and Behavior, 8(4), Article e00938. https://doi.org/10.1002/brb3.938
Liu-Shuang, J., Norcia, A. M., & Rossion, B. (2014). An objective index of individual face discrimination in the right occipito-temporal cortex by means of fast periodic oddball stimulation. Neuropsychologia, 52, 57–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2013.10.022
Lochy, A., Zimmermann, F. G., Laguesse, R., Willenbockel, V., Rossion, B., & Vuong, Q. C. (2018). Does extensive training at individuating novel objects in adulthood lead to visual expertise? The role of facelikeness. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 30(4), 449–467. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_01212
Marinova, M., Georges, C., Guillaume, M., Reynvoet, B., Schiltz, C., & Van Rinsveld, A. (2021). Automatic integration of numerical formats examined with frequency-tagged EEG. Scientific Reports, 11, Article 21405. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-00738-0
Marlair, C., Lochy, A., Buyle, M., Schiltz, C., & Crollen, V. (2021). Canonical representations of fingers and dots trigger an automatic activation of number semantics: An EEG study on 10-year-old children. Neuropsychologia, 157, Article 107874. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2021.107874
Marlair, C., Crollen, V., & Lochy, A. (2022a). A shared numerical magnitude representation evidenced by the distance effect in frequency‑tagging EEG. Scientific Reports, 12(14559). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-18811-7
Marlair, C., Crollen, V., & Lochy, A. (2022b). Data from: A shared numerical magnitude representation evidenced by the distance effect in frequency-tagging EEG. Dryad. https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.612jm6469
Moyer, R. S., & Landauer, T. K. (1967). Time required for judgements of numerical inequality. Nature, 215, 1519–1520. https://doi.org/10.1038/2151519a0
Naccache, L., Blandin, E., & Dehaene, S. (2002). Unconscious masked priming depends on temporal attention. Psychological Science, 13(5), 416–424. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00474
Naccache, L., & Dehaene, S. (2001). Unconscious semantic priming extends to novel unseen stimuli. Cognition, 80(3), 215–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(00)00139-6
Niesen, M., Vander Ghinst, M., Bourguignon, M., Wens, V., Bertels, J., Goldman, S., Choufani, G., Hassid, S., & De Tiège, X. (2020). Tracking the effects of top–down attention on word discrimination using frequency-tagged neuromagnetic responses. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 32(5), 877–888. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_01522
Norcia, A. M., Appelbaum, L. G., Ales, J. M., Cottereau, B. R., & Rossion, B. (2015). The steady-state visual evoked potential in vision research: A review. Journal of vision, 15(6), Article 4. https://doi.org/10.1167/15.6.4
Park, J., DeWind, N. K., Woldorff, M. G., & Brannon, E. M. (2016). Rapid and direct encoding of numerosity in the visual stream. Cerebral Cortex, 26(2), 748–763. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhv017
Piazza, M., Pinel, P., Le Bihan, D., & Dehaene, S. (2007). A magnitude code common to numerosities and number symbols in human intraparietal cortex. Neuron, 53(2), 293–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2006.11.022
Quek, G., Nemrodov, D., Rossion, B., & Liu-Shuang, J. (2018). Selective attention to faces in a rapid visual stream: Hemispheric differences in enhancement and suppression of category-selective neural activity. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 30(3), 393–410. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_01220
Retter, T. L., Rossion, B., & Schiltz, C. (2021). Harmonic amplitude summation for frequency tagging analysis. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 33(11), 2372–2393. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_01763
Rossion, B. (2014). Understanding individual face discrimination by means of fast periodic visual stimulation. Experimental Brain Research, 232(6), 1599–1621. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-014-3934-9
Rossion, B., Prieto, E. A., Boremanse, A., Kuefner, D., & Van Belle, G. (2012). A steady-state visual evoked potential approach to individual face perception: Effect of inversion, contrast-reversal and temporal dynamics. NeuroImage, 63(3), 1585–1600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.08.033
Srinivasan, R., Russell, D. P., Edelman, G. M., & Tononi, G. (1999). Increased synchronization of neuromagnetic responses during conscious perception. Journal of Neuroscience, 19(13), 5435–5448. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.19-13-05435.1999
Temple, E., & Posner, M. I. (1998). Brain mechanisms of quantity are similar in 5-year-old children and adults. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 95(13), 7836–7841. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.95.13.7836
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.
Tzelgov, J., Henik, A., Sneg, R., & Baruch, O. (1996). Unintentional word reading via the phonological route: The Stroop effect with cross-script homophones. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22(2), 336–349. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.22.2.336
van de Walle de Ghelcke, A., Rossion, B., Schiltz, C., & Lochy, A. (2021). Developmental changes in neural letter‐selectivity: A 1‐year follow‐up of beginning readers. Developmental Science, 24(1), Article e12999. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12999
Vetter, P., Butterworth, B., & Bahrami, B. (2008). Modulating attentional load affects numerosity estimation: Evidence against a pre-attentive subitizing mechanism. PLOS ONE, 3(9), Article e3269. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0003269
Funding
This work was supported by the Fonds de la Recherche Scientifique under FRESH grant FC38635 (to C.M.), the Faculty of Humanities, Education and Social Sciences at the University of Luxembourg (to A.L.), and the Seed Funding program of the UCLouvain Fonds Spécial de Recherche (FSR ADi/DB/10063.2018 to VC).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Ethics approval
The procedures were in line with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the local ethics committee of Saint-Luc – UCLouvain (2019/12SEP/400 – B403201941534).
Consent to participate and to publish
Informed consent was obtained from all participants included in the study, and there is no identifying information about participants.
Open practices statement
The experiment reported in this article was not preregistered. The dataset generated during the current study is available from the corresponding author on request. Data for the Magnitude instruction were retrieved from a previous study of Marlair et al. (2022b) available in the Dryad Digital repository (https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.612jm6469). The data were analyzed with an open-source toolbox (https://www.letswave.org).
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
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.
About this article
Cite this article
Marlair, C., Lochy, A. & Crollen, V. Frequency-tagging EEG reveals the effect of attentional focus on abstract magnitude processing. Psychon Bull Rev (2024). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-024-02480-w
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-024-02480-w