Advertisement

The Indo-Arabic distance effect originates in the response statistics of the task

  • Petia Kojouharova
  • Attila Krajcsi
Original Article

Abstract

In the number comparison task distance effect (better performance with larger distance between the two numbers) and size effect (better performance with smaller numbers) are used extensively to find the representation underlying numerical cognition. According to the dominant analog number system (ANS) explanation, both effects depend on the extent of the overlap between the noisy representations of the two values. An alternative discrete semantic system (DSS) account supposes that the distance effect is rooted in the association between the numbers and the “small–large” properties with better performance for numbers with relatively high differences in their strength of association, and that the size effect depends on the everyday frequency of the numbers with smaller numbers being more frequent and thus easier to process. A recent study demonstrated that in a new, artificial digit notation—where both association and frequency can be arbitrarily manipulated—the distance and size effects change according to the DSS account. Here, we investigate whether the same manipulations modify the distance and size effects in Indo-Arabic notation, for which associations and frequency are already well established. We found that the distance effect depends on the association between the numbers and the “small–large” responses. It was also found that while the distance effect is flexible, the size effect seems to be unaltered, revealing a dissociation between the two effects. This result challenges the ANS view, which supposes a single mechanism behind the distance and size effects, and supports the DSS account, supposing two independent, statistics-based mechanisms behind the two effects.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Krisztián Kasos and Ákos Laczkó for their comments on an earlier version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

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 Department of Cognitive Psychology ethics committee 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. Dehaene, S. (2007). Symbols and quantities in parietal cortex: Elements of a mathematical theory of number representation and manipulation. In P. Haggard, Y. Rossetti & M. Kawato (Eds.), Sensorimotor foundations of higher cognition (Vol. XXII, pp. 527–574). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  2. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dehaene, S., & Mehler, J. (1992). Cross-linguistic regularities in the frequency of number words. Cognition, 43(1), 1–29.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(92)90030-L.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Fischer, M. H., Mills, R. A., & Shaki, S. (2010). How to cook a SNARC: Number placement in text rapidly changes spatial–numerical associations. Brain and Cognition, 72(3), 333–336.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2009.10.010.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Goffin, C., & Ansari, D. (2016). Beyond magnitude: Judging ordinality of symbolic number is unrelated to magnitude comparison and independently relates to individual differences in arithmetic. Cognition, 150, 68–76.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2016.01.018.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Krajcsi, A. (2016). Numerical distance and size effects dissociate in Indo-Arabic number comparison. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-016-1175-6.Google Scholar
  7. Krajcsi, A., & Kojouharova, P. (2017). Symbolic numerical distance effect does not reflect the difference between numbers. Frontiers in Psychology.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02013.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Krajcsi, A., Lengyel, G., & Kojouharova, P. (2016). The source of the symbolic numerical distance and size effects. Frontiers in Psychology.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01795.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 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/Revue Canadienne de Psychologie Expérimentale, 70(1), 12–23.  https://doi.org/10.1037/cep0000070.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Lyons, I. M., Ansari, D., & Beilock, S. L. (2015). Qualitatively different coding of symbolic and nonsymbolic numbers in the human brain: Neural coding of numbers. Human Brain Mapping, 36(2), 475–488.  https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.22641.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lyons, I. M., Vogel, S. E., & Ansari, D. (2016). On the ordinality of numbers. In Progress in brain research (Vol. 227, pp. 187–221). Amsterdam: Elsevier.  https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.pbr.2016.04.010.Google Scholar
  13. Moyer, R. S., & Landauer, T. K. (1967). Time required for judgements of numerical inequality. Nature, 215(5109), 1519–1520.  https://doi.org/10.1038/2151519a0.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Peirce, J. W. (2007). PsychoPy—Psychophysics software in Python. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 162(1–2), 8–13.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2006.11.017.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Ratcliff, R., & McKoon, G. (2008). The diffusion decision model: Theory and data for two-choice decision tasks. Neural Computation, 20(4), 873–922.  https://doi.org/10.1162/neco.2008.12-06-420.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Ratcliff, R., & Tuerlinckx, F. (2002). Estimating parameters of the diffusion model: Approaches to dealing with contaminant reaction times and parameter variability. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 9(3), 438–481.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196302.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 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.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01581.Google Scholar
  18. Sasanguie, D., Göbel, S. M., Moll, K., Smets, K., & Reynvoet, B. (2013). Approximate number sense, symbolic number processing, or number–space mappings: What underlies mathematics achievement? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 114(3), 418–431.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2012.10.012.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Schneider, M., Beeres, K., Coban, L., Merz, S., Susan Schmidt, S., Stricker, J., & De Smedt, B. (2017). Associations of non-symbolic and symbolic numerical magnitude processing with mathematical competence: A meta-analysis. Developmental Science, 20(3), e12372.  https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Smith, P. L., & Ratcliff, R. (2004). Psychology and neurobiology of simple decisions. Trends in Neurosciences, 27(3), 161–168.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tins.2004.01.006.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Verguts, T., Fias, W., & Stevens, M. (2005). A model of exact small-number representation. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 12(1), 66–80.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196349.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Verguts, T., & Van Opstal, F. (2014). A delta-rule model of numerical and non-numerical order processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 40(3), 1092–1102.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035114.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Wagenmakers, E.-J., Van Der Maas, H. L. J., & Grasman, R. P. P. P. (2007). An EZ-diffusion model for response time and accuracy. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 14(1), 3–22.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194023.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Doctoral School of PsychologyELTE Eötvös Loránd UniversityBudapestHungary
  2. 2.Department of Cognitive Psychology, Institute of PsychologyELTE Eötvös Loránd UniversityBudapestHungary
  3. 3.Research Centre for Natural Sciences, Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience and PsychologyHungarian Academy of SciencesBudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations