Advertisement

How does number magnitude influence temporal and spatial parameters of eye movements?

  • A. PressigoutEmail author
  • K. Dore-Mazars
Research Article

Abstract

The influence of numerical processing on individuals’ behavior is now well documented. The spatial representation of numbers on a left-to-right mental line (i.e., SNARC effect) has been shown to have sensorimotor consequences, the majority of studies being mainly concerned with its impact on the response times. Its impact on the motor programming stage remains less documented, although swiping movement amplitudes have recently been shown to be modulated by number magnitude. Regarding saccadic eye movements, the few available studies have not provided clear-cut conclusions. They showed that spatial–numerical associations modulated ocular drifts, but not the amplitude of memory-guided saccades. Because these studies held saccadic coordinates constant, which might have masked potential numerical effects, we examined whether spontaneous saccadic eye movements (with no saccadic target) could reflect numerical effects. Participants were asked to look either to the left or to the right side of an empty screen to estimate the magnitude (< or > 5) of a centrally presented digit. Latency data confirmed the presence of the classical SNARC and distance effects. More critically, saccade amplitude reflected a numerical effect: participants’ saccades were longer for digits far from the standard (1 and 9) and were shorter for digits close to it (4 and 6). Our results suggest that beyond response times, kinematic parameters also offer valuable information for the understanding of the link between numerical cognition and motor programming.

Keywords

Numerical processing Saccadic eye movement Mental number line Distance effect Saccade amplitude 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank the editor and reviewers for considering this manuscript. This research received funding from a scholarship from the Ministry of Research (Alexandra Pressigout). We thank Agnes Charvillat for her help with the English version and Leo-Jun Leroy for his contribution to data collection.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee (local Ethics Committee of Paris Descartes University, No. CER-PD: 2018-62) and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. Andres M, Ostry DJ, Nicol F, Paus T (2008) Time course of number magnitude interference during grasping. Cortex 44(4):414–419PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bueti D, Walsh V (2009) The parietal cortex and the representation of time, space, number and other magnitudes. Philos Trans R Soc B: Biol Sci 364(1525):1831–1840CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Burr DC, Ross J, Binda P, Morrone MC (2010) Saccades compress space, time, and number. Trends Cogn Sci 14(12):528–533PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cantlon JF, Platt ML, Brannon EM (2009) Beyond the number domain. Trends Cogn Sci 13(2):83–91PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Colby CL, Goldberg ME (1992) The updating of the representation of visual space in parietal cortex by intended eye movements. Science 255(5040):90–92PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Daar M, Pratt J (2008) Digits affect actions: the SNARC effect and response selection. Cortex 44(4):400–405PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dehaene S (1997) The number sense: how the mind creates mathematics. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Dehaene S, Bossini S, Giraux P (1993) The mental representation of parity and number magnitude. J Exp Psychol Gen 122(3):371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Didino D, Breil C, Knops A (2019) The influence of semantic processing and response latency on the SNARC effect. Acta Physiol (Oxf) 196:75–86Google Scholar
  10. Dotan D, Dehaene S (2013) How do we convert a number into a finger trajectory? Cognition 129(3):512–529PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fernández SR, Rahona JJ, Hervás G, Vázquez C, Ulrich R (2011) Number magnitude determines gaze direction: spatial–numerical association in a free-choice task. Cortex 47(5):617–620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fias W (1996) The importance of magnitude information in numerical processing: evidence from the SNARC effect. Math Cogn 2(1):95–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fias W, Lauwereyns J, Lammertyn J (2001) Irrelevant digits affect feature-based attention depending on the overlap of neural circuits. Cogn Brain Res 12(3):415–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Findlay JM, Walker R (1999) A model of saccade generation based on parallel processing and competitive inhibition. Behav Brain Sci 22(4):661–674PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fischer MH, Warlop N, Hill RL, Fias W (2004) Oculomotor bias induced by number perception. Exp Psychol 51(2):91–97PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fischer U, Fischer MH, Huber S, Strauß S, Moeller K (2018) The influence of number magnitude on continuous swiping movements. J Numer Cogn 4:297–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ganor-Stern D, Goldman R (2015) Reaching towards an end: numerical end and distance effects in motor movements. J Cogn Psychol 27(4):490–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gevers W, Verguts T, Reynvoet B, Caessens B, Fias W (2006) Numbers and space: a computational model of the SNARC effect. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 32(1):32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Grefkes C, Fink GR (2005) The functional organization of the intraparietal sulcus in humans and monkeys. J Anat 207(1):3–17PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hartmann M, Mast FW, Fischer MH (2015) Spatial biases during mental arithmetic: evidence from eye movements on a blank screen. Front Psychol 6:12PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hartmann M, Sommer NR, Diana L, Müri RM, Eberhard-Moscicka AK (2019) Further to the right: viewing distance modulates attentional asymmetries (‘pseudoneglect’) during visual exploration. Brain Cognit 129:40–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hartmann M, Mast FW, Fischer MH (2016) Counting is a spatial process: evidence from eye movements. Psychol Res 80(3):399–409PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. Hesse PN, Fiehler K, Bremmer F (2016) SNARC effect in different effectors. Perception 45(1–2):180–195PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Hubbard EM, Piazza M, Pinel P, Dehaene S (2005) Interactions between number and space in parietal cortex. Nat Rev Neurosci 6(6):435PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. Hung YH, Hung DL, Tzeng OJL, Wu DH (2008) Flexible spatial mapping of different notations of numbers in Chinese readers. Cognition 106(3):1441–1450PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. Irwin DE, Thomas LE (2007) The effect of saccades on number processing. Percept Psychophys 69(3):450–458PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. Klein E, Huber S, Nuerk HC, Moeller K (2014) Operational momentum affects eye fixation behaviour. Q J Exp Psychol 67(8):1614–1625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Knops A, Thirion B, Hubbard EM, Michel V, Dehaene S (2009) Recruitment of an area involved in eye movements during mental arithmetic. Science 324(5934):1583–1585PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. Lindemann O, Abolafia JM, Girardi G, Bekkering H (2007) Getting a grip on numbers: numerical magnitude priming in object grasping. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 33(6):1400PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Loetscher T, Schwarz U, Schubiger M, Brugger P (2008) Head turns bias the brain’s internal random generator. Curr Biol 18(2):R60–R62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Loetscher T, Bockisch CJ, Nicholls ME, Brugger P (2010) Eye position predicts what number you have in mind. Curr Biol 20(6):R264–R265PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Masson N, Letesson C, Pesenti M (2018) Time course of overt attentional shifts in mental arithmetic: evidence from gaze metrics. Q J Exp Psychol 71(4):1009–1019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mock J, Huber S, Klein E, Moeller K (2016) Insights into numerical cognition: considering eye-fixations in number processing and arithmetic. Psychol Res 80(3):334–359PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Moyer RS, Landauer TK (1967) Time required for judgements of numerical inequality. Nature 215(5109):1519PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Myachykov A, Cangelosi A, Ellis R, Fischer MH (2015) The oculomotor resonance effect in spatial–numerical mapping. Acta Physiol (Oxf) 161:162–169Google Scholar
  36. Myachykov A, Ellis R, Cangelosi A, Fischer MH (2016) Ocular drift along the mental number line. Psychol Res 80(3):379–388PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nuerk HC, Iversen W, Willmes K (2004) Notational modulation of the SNARC and the MARC (linguistic markedness of response codes) effect. Q J Exp Psychol Sect A 57(5):835–863CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pressigout A, Charvillat A, Mersad K, Doré-Mazars K (2018) Time dependency of the SNARC effect for different number formats: evidence from saccadic responses. Psychol Res 83:1–11Google Scholar
  39. Ranzini M, Lisi M, Zorzi M (2016) Voluntary eye movements direct attention on the mental number space. Psychol Res 80(3):389–398PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rugani R, Sartori L (2016) Numbers in action. Front Hum Neurosci 10:388PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. Schwarz W, Keus IM (2004) Moving the eyes along the mental number line: comparing SNARC effects with saccadic and manual responses. Percept Psychophys 66(4):651–664PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Seegelke C, Wühr P (2018) Compatibility between object size and response side in grasping: the left hand prefers smaller objects, the right hand prefers larger objects. PeerJ 6:e6026PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Shaki S, Fischer MH, Petrusic WM (2009) Reading habits for both words and numbers contribute to the SNARC effect. Psychon Bull Rev 16(2):328–331PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Shuman M, Kanwisher N (2004) Numerical magnitude in the human parietal lobe: tests of representational generality and domain specificity. Neuron 44(3):557–569PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Simon O, Mangin JF, Cohen L, Le Bihan D, Dehaene S (2002) Topographical layout of hand, eye, calculation, and language-related areas in the human parietal lobe. Neuron 33(3):475–487PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Song JH, Nakayama K (2008) Target selection in visual search as revealed by movement trajectories. Vision Res 48(7):853–861PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Team R (2015) RStudio: integrated development for R. RStudio, Inc., Boston, MA, 42, 14. http://www.rstudio.com
  48. Walsh V (2003) A theory of magnitude: common cortical metrics of time, space and quantity. Trends Cogn Sci 7(11):483–488PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Whalen J, Gallistel CR, Gelman R (1999) Nonverbal counting in humans: the psychophysics of number representation. Psychol Sci 10(2):130–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Winter B, Marghetis T, Matlock T (2015) Of magnitudes and metaphors: explaining cognitive interactions between space, time, and number. Cortex 64:209–224PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wood G, Willmes K, Nuerk HC, Fischer MH (2008) On the cognitive link between space and number: a meta-analysis of the SNARC effect. Psychol Sci Q 4(4):489–525Google Scholar
  52. Zebian S (2005) Linkages between number concepts, spatial thinking, and directionality of writing: the SNARC effect and the reverse SNARC effect in English and Arabic monoliterates, biliterates, and illiterate Arabic speakers. J Cogn Cult 5(1–2):165–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Université de Paris, VACBoulogne-BillancourtFrance

Personalised recommendations