Advertisement

Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 236, Issue 2, pp 335–346 | Cite as

Mapping of non-numerical domains on space: a systematic review and meta-analysis

  • Anne Macnamara
  • Hannah A. D. Keage
  • Tobias Loetscher
Review

Abstract

The spatial numerical association of response code (SNARC) effect is characterized by low numbers mapped to the left side of space and high numbers mapped to the right side of space. In addition to numbers, SNARC-like effects have been found in non-numerical magnitude domains such as time, size, letters, luminance, and more, whereby the smaller/earlier and larger/later magnitudes are typically mapped to the left and right of space, respectively. The purpose of this systematic and meta-analytic review was to identify and summarise all empirical papers that have investigated horizontal (left–right) SNARC-like mappings using non-numerical stimuli. A systematic search was conducted using EMBASE, Medline, and PsycINFO, where 2216 publications were identified, with 57 papers meeting the inclusion criteria (representing 112 experiments). Ninety-five of these experiments were included in a meta-analysis, resulting in an overall effect size of d = .488 for a SNARC-like effect. Additional analyses revealed a significant effect size advantage for explicit instruction tasks compared with implicit instructions, yet yielded no difference for the role of expertise on SNARC-like effects. There was clear evidence for a publication bias in the field, but the impact of this bias is likely to be modest, and it is unlikely that the SNARC-like effect is a pure artefact of this bias. The similarities in the response properties for the spatial mappings of numerical and non-numerical domains support the concept of a general higher order magnitude system. Yet, further research will need to be conducted to identify all the factors modulating the strength of the spatial associations.

Keywords

Spatial numerical association of response codes SNARC Magnitudes SARC 

Supplementary material

221_2017_5154_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (637 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 636 KB)

References

  1. Bonato M, Zorzi M, Umilta C (2012) When time is space: evidence for a mental time line. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 36:2257–2273.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2012.08.007 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JPT, Rothstein HR (2009) Introduction to meta-analysis. Wiley, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bueti D, Walsh V (2009) The parietal cortex and the representation of time, space, number and other magnitudes. Phil Trans R Soc B 364:1831–1840.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2009.0028 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Bulf H, Cassia VM, de Hevia MD (2014) Are numbers, size and brightness equally efficient in orienting visual attention? Evidence from an eye-tracking study. PLoS One 9:e99499.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0099499 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Cantlon JF, Platt ML, Brannon EM (2009) Beyond the number domain. Trends Cogn Sci 13:83–91.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2008.11.007 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Chang S, Cho YS (2015) Polarity correspondence effect between loudness and lateralized response set. Front Psychol 6:683.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00683 PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Cho YS, Bae GY, Proctor RW (2012) Referential coding contributes to the horizontal SMARC effect. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 38:726–734.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026157 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Cipora K, Nuerk HC (2013) Is the SNARC effect related to the level of mathematics? No systematic relationship observed despite more power, more repetitions, and more direct assessment of arithmetic skill. Q J Exp Psychol 66:1974–1991.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2013.772215 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cipora K, Hohol M, Nuerk HC, Willmes K, Brozek B, Kucharzyk B, Necka E (2016) Professional mathematicians differ from controls in their spatial-numerical associations. Psychol Res 80:710–726.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-015-0677-6 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edn. Routledge, AbingdonGoogle Scholar
  11. Cohen Kadosh R, Lammertyn J, Izard V (2008) Are numbers special? An overview of chronometric, neuroimaging, developmental and comparative studies of magnitude representation. Prog Neurobiol 84:132–147.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pneurobio.2007.11.001 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (Version 3.3.070) [Computer software] (2014) Biostat, Englewood. http://www.meta-analysis.com. Accessed 10 June 2017
  13. Cutini S, Scarpa F, Scatturin P, Dell’Acqua R, Zorzi M (2014) Number-space interactions in the human parietal cortex: Enlightening the SNARC effect with functional near-infrared spectroscopy. Cereb Cortex 24:444–451.  https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhs321 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Dehaene S (1997) The number sense: how the mind creates mathematics. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Dehaene S, Bossini S, Giraux P (1993) The mental representation of parity and number magnitude. J Exp Psychol 122:371–396.  https://doi.org/10.1037//0096-3445.122.3.371 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dehaene S, Piazza M, Pinel P, Cohen L (2003) Three parietal circuits for number processing. Cogn Neuropsychol 20:487–506.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02643290244000239 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Dodd MD, van der Stigchel S, Leghari MA, Fung G, Kingstone A (2008) Attentional SNARC: there’s something special about numbers (let us count the ways). Cognition 108:810–818.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2008.04.006 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Duval S, Tweedie R (2000) Trim and fill: a simple funnel-plot method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics 56:455–463.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0006-341X.2000.00455.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Egger M, Smith GD, Schneider M, Minder C (1997) Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. Br Med J 315:629–634.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fabbri M, Cellini N, Martoni M, Tonetti L, Natale V (2013) Perceptual and motor congruency effects in time-space association. Atten Percept Psychophys 75:1840–1851.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-013-0519-9 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Fias W, Lammertyn J, Reynvoet B, Dupont P, Orban GA (2003) Parietal representation of symbolic and non-symbolic magnitude. J Cogn Neurosci 15:47–56.  https://doi.org/10.1162/089892903321107819 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Fischer MH, Riello M, Giordano BL, Rusconi E (2013) Singing numbers… in cognitive space—a dual-task study of the link between pitch, space, and numbers. Top Cogn Sci 5:354–366.  https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12017 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Frost R, Armstrong BC, Siegelman N, Christianson MH (2015) Domain generality versus modality specificity: the paradox of statistical learning. Trends Cogn Sci 19:117–125.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2014.12.010 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Fuhrman O, Boroditsky L (2010) Cross-cultural differences in mental representations of time: evidence from an implicit nonlinguistic task. Cogn Sci 34:1430–1451.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01105.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Gevers W, Lammertyn J (2005) The hunt for SNARC. Psychol Sci 47:10–21. http://www.psychologie-aktuell.com/index.php?id=200. Accessed 23 Feb 2016
  26. Gevers W, Reynvoet B, Fias W (2003) The mental representation of ordinal sequences is spatially organized. Cognition 87:B87–B95.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00234-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gevers W, Verguts T, Reynvoet B, Caessens B, Fias W (2006) Numbers and space: a computational model of the SNARC effect. Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 32:32–44.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.32.1.32 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hartmann M (2016) Non-musicians also have a piano in the head: evidence for spatial–musical associations from line bisection tracking. Cogn Process.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-016-0779-0 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Herrera A, Macizo P, Semenza C (2008) The role of working memory in the association between number magnitude and space. Acta Psychol (Amst) 128:225–237.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2008.01.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hoffmann D, Mussolin C, Martin R, Schiltz C (2014) The impact of mathematical proficiency on the number-space association. PLoS One 9:e85048.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0085048 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. Hutchinson S, Louwerse MM (2014) Language statistics explain the spatial-numerical association of response codes. Psychon Bull Rev 21:470–478.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-013-0492-2 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Kishon-Rabin L, Amir O, Vexler Y, Zaltz Y (2001) Pitch discrimination: are professional musicians better than non-musicians? J Basic Clin Physiol Pharmacol 12:125–143.  https://doi.org/10.1515/JBCPP.2001.12.2.125 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Korallo L, Foreman N, Boyd-Davis S, Moar M, Coulson M (2012) Can multiple “spatial” virtual timelines convey the relatedness of chronological knowledge across parallel domains? Comput Educ 58:856–862.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lega C, Cattaneo Z, Merabet LB, Vecchi T, Cucchi S (2014) The effect of musical expertise on the representation of space. Front Hum Neurosci 8:250.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00250 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J et al (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med 6:1–28.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lidji P, Kolinsky R, Lochy A, Morais J (2007) Spatial associations for musical stimuli: a piano in the head? J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 33:1189–1207.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.33.5.1189 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Masson N, Pesenti M, Dormal V (2016) Duration and numerical estimation in right brain-damaged patients with and without neglect: Lack of support for a mental time line. Brit J Psych 107:467–483.  https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12155 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Miles LK, Tan L, Noble GD, Lumsden J, Macrae CN (2011) Can a mind have two time lines? Exploring space-time mapping in Mandarin and English speakers. Psychon Bull Rev 18:598–604.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-011-0068-y CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Nishimura A, Yokosawa K (2009) Effects of laterality and pitch height of an auditory accessory stimulus on horizontal response selection: the Simon effect and the SMARC effect. Psychon Bull Rev 16:666–670.  https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.16.4.666 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Nunez R, Cooperrider K (2013) The tangle of space and time in human cognition. Trends Cogn Sci 17:220–229.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2013.03.008 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Ouellet M, Santiago J, Israeli Z, Gabay S (2010) Is the future the right time? Exp Psychol 57:308–314.  https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000036 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Pariyadath V, Plitt MH, Churchill SJ, Eagleman DM (2012) Why overlearned sequences are special: distinct neural networks for ordinal sequences. Front Hum Neurosci 6:328.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00328 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. Perrone G, de Hevia MD, Bricolo E, Girelli L (2010) Numbers can move our hands: a spatial representation effect in digits handwriting. Exp Brain Res 205:479–487.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-010-2383-3 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Pinel P, Piazza M, Le Bihan D, Dehaene S (2004) Distributed and overlapping cerebral representations of number, size, and luminance during comparative judgments. Neuron 41:983–993.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0896-6273(04)00107-2 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Previtali P, de Hevia MD, Girelli L (2010) Placing order in space: The SNARC effect in serial learning. Exp Brain Res 201:599–605.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-009-2063-3 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Proctor RW, Cho YS (2006) Polarity correspondence: A general principle for performance of speeded binary classification tasks. Psychol Bull 132:416–442.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.3.416 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Prpic V, Fumarola A, de Tommaso M, Baldassi G, Agostini T (2013) A SNARC-like effect for music tempo. Rev Psychol 20:47–51. http://psihologija.ffzg.unizg.hr/review. Accessed 26 Mar 2016
  48. Ren P, Nicholls ME, Ma YY, Chen L (2011) Size matters: non-numerical magnitude affects the spatial coding of response. PLoS One 6:e23553.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0023553 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  49. Rolke B, Fernandez SR, Schmid M et al (2013) Priming the mental time-line: effects of modality and processing mode. Cogn Process 14:231–244.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-013-0537-5 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Rosenthal R (1979) The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychol Bull 86:638–641.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rosenthal R, Rosnow R (2008) Essentials of behavioral research: methods and data analysis, 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  52. Rusconi E, Kwan B, Giordano BL, Umilta C, Butterworth B (2006) Spatial representation of pitch height: the SMARC effect. Cognition 99:113–129.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2005.01.004 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Santiago J, Lupianez J, Perez E, Funes MJ (2007) Time (also) flies from left to right. Psychon Bull Rev 14:512–516.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194099 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Santiago J, Roman A, Ouellet M, Rodriguez N, Perez-Azor P (2010) In hindsight, life flows from left to right. Psychol Res 74:59–70.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-008-0220-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Schwarz W, Eiselt A (2009) The perception of temporal order along the mental number line. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 35:989–1004.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013703 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Sellaro R, Treccani B, Job R, Cubelli R (2015) Spatial coding of object typical size: evidence for a SNARC-like effect. Psychol Res 79:950–962.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-014-0636-7 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Shaki S, Gevers W (2011) Cultural characteristics dissociate magnitude and ordinal information processing. J Cross-Cult Psychol 42:639–650.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022111406100 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Shaki S, Petrusic WM, Leth-Steensen C (2012) SNARC effects with numerical and non-numerical symbolic comparative judgments: Instructional and cultural dependencies. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 38:515–530.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026729 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Stocker K, Hartmann M, Martarelli CS, Mast FW (2016) Eye movements reveal mental looking through time. Cogn Sci 40:1648–1670.  https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12301 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Tonkovic M (2013) What is left and what is right? Spatial position as a context for conceptual processing. Rev Psychol 20:37–45. http://psihologija.ffzg.unizg.hr/review. Accessed 17 Nov 2016
  61. Torralbo A, Santiago J, Lupianez J (2006) Flexible conceptual projection of time onto spatial frames of reference. Cogn Sci 30:745–757.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0000_67 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Vallesi A, Binns MA, Shallice T (2008) An effect of spatial-temporal association of response codes: understanding the cognitive representations of time. Cognition 107:501–527.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.10.011 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Vallesi A, Weisblatt Y, Semenza C, Shaki S (2014) Cultural modulations of space-time compatibility effects. Psychon Bull Rev 21:666–669.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-013-0540-y CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. van Dijck JP, Gevers W, Fias W (2009) Numbers are associated with different types of spatial information depending on the task. Cognition 1113:248–253.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2009.08.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. van Elk M, van Schie HT, Bekkering H (2010) From left to right: Processing acronyms referring to names of political parties activates spatial associations. Q J Exp Psychol 63:2202–2219.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2010.495160 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Viarouge A, Hubbard EM, McCandliss BD (2014) The cognitive mechanisms of the SNARC effect: an individual differences approach. PLoS One 9:e95756.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0095756 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  67. Vicario CM, Rumiati RI (2014) Left-right compatibility in the processing of trading verbs. Front Behav Neurosci 8:1–6.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2014.00016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Vu KP, Minakata K, Ngo MK (2014) Influence of auditory and audiovisual stimuli on the right-left prevalence effect. Psychol Res 78:400–410.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-013-0518-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Walsh V (2003) A theory of magnitude: common cortical metrics of time, space and quantity. Trends Cogn Sci 7:483–488.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2003.09.002 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Walsh V (2015) A theory of magnitude: the parts that sum the number. In: Cohen KR, Dowker A (eds) The oxford handbook of numerical cognition, pp 552–565Google Scholar
  71. 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 50:489–525.  https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169.52.3.187 Google Scholar
  72. Yang W, Sun Y (2016) A monolingual mind can have two time lines: Exploring space-time mappings in Mandarin monolinguals. Psychon Bull Rev 23:857–864.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0964-7 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Psychology, Social Work and Social PolicyUniversity of South AustraliaAdelaideAustralia

Personalised recommendations