Abstract
Smaller numbers are typically responded to faster with a bottom than a top key, whereas the opposite occurs for larger numbers (a vertical spatial–numerical association of response codes: i.e. the vertical SNARC effect). Here, in four experiments, we explored whether a vertical spatial–magnitude association can emerge for lighter vs. heavier items. Participants were presented with a central target stimulus that could be a word describing a material (e.g. ‘paper’, ‘iron’: Experiment 1), a numerical quantity of weight (e.g. ‘1 g’, ‘1 kg’: Experiment 2) or a picture associated with a real object that participants weighed before the experiment (Experiments 3a/3b). Participants were asked to respond either to the weight (Experiments 1–3a) or to the size (i.e. weight was task-irrelevant; Experiment 3b) of the stimuli by pressing vertically placed keys. In Experiments 1 and 2, faster responses emerged for the lighter-bottom/heavier-top mapping—in line with a standard SNARC-like effect—whereas in Experiment 3a the opposite mapping emerged (lighter-top/heavier-bottom). No evidence of an implicit weight-space association emerged in Experiment 3b. Overall, these results provide evidence indicating a possible context-dependent vertical spatial representation of weight.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
The datasets generated and analysed during the current study are available in the Open Science Framework repository, https://osf.io/43s8u/?view_only=7d78c3cc5e06461282c6a1f93c66a308.
Notes
Interestingly, it has been suggested that the correlation between mass and downward force (i.e. weight) underlies the well-known tendency—displayed by people without formal physics instruction—to overestimate the positive relationship between object mass and its falling speed (see Rohrer 2003; Vicovaro 2014; Vicovaro et al. 2019).
The use of a vertical response box is highly desirable in experiments investigating vertical SNARC and SNARC-like effects. Indeed, if participants’ responses are collected through a traditional keyboard placed on a horizontal plane and ‘vertically aligned’ keys are used (e.g. ‘Y’ and ‘B’; see for instance Ito and Hatta, 2004), then the response keys are actually aligned sagittally rather than vertically. In turn, as highlighted by Winter et al. (2015), this can lead to confounding between ‘bottom-top’ and ‘near-far’ dimensions.
The SNARC effect is frequently tested by computing, for each number stimulus, the mean RT difference between the right- and the left-side key, and then by testing the existence of a negative correlation between number magnitudes and mean RT difference (see Fias, Brysbaert, Geypens, and d’Ydewalle 1996). Theoretically, this approach could also be used in the current context using the mean rated weight of target words instead of number magnitude. However, when magnitude is task relevant, as in our study, the mean RT difference is not a linear but a categorical function of magnitude, which implies the violation of one basic assumption of linear regression analysis (see Gevers et al. 2006).
According to Lakens (2012), it can be established which of two opposite categories (e.g. light vs. heavy) is positively polarized by considering which category gives the name to its dimension. Here, the positively polarized category is ‘heavy’ as it gives one of the names with which to refer to the ‘weight’ dimension (i.e. heaviness). This is also reflected in in common language, since there is a natural preference is using ‘heavy’ rather than ‘light’ when referring to heaviness/weight dimension, such as when we want to know the weight of another individual; in this case, we typically ask ‘how heavy are you?’ and not ‘how light are you?’.
A well-known phenomenon underlying weight perception is the so-called ‘size–weight illusion’: When two objects of identical physical weight but different size are lifted, the smaller object is typically perceived to be heavier than the larger object (e.g. Buckingham, 2014; Vicovaro and Burigana, 2014). This explains why, in the present context, the physical weight of the two bigger spheres (light and heavy) exceeded that of the corresponding smaller spheres. Moreover, the weight difference between the small and the big sphere was larger for the heavy spheres (695 g and 1100 g, respectively) than for the light spheres (97 g and 154 g, respectively). This was done on purpose to comply with Weber’s law, according to which differences in perceived weight are related to weight ratios rather than to weight differences. Since a weight ratio of about 1.58 (i.e. 154 g/97 g) nullified the size-weight illusion in the case of light spheres, the same weight ratio was also maintained for heavy spheres (i.e. 1100 g/695 g ≈ 1.58), to nullify the size-weight illusion likewise. For completeness, the perceived weight of the four spheres was also pre-tested by a sample of 24 individuals (mean age M = 23 years, SD = 2.5; five males, one left-handed). In more detail, participants were asked to lift each sphere with two hands, and to estimate its weight by providing an integer numerical value. The integer value was recorded manually by the experimenter. Sphere order was counterbalanced across participants. A 2 (weight: light vs. heavy) × 2 (size: small vs. big) repeated-measures ANOVA was conducted on standardized estimates. The main effect of weight was significant [F(1, 23) = 7213.5, p < .001, η2g = .899], confirming that light and heavy spheres were perceived as different, whereas the main effect of size was non-significant (F < 1). The interaction between the two factors was significant [F(1, 23) = 5.85, p = .024, η2g = .107]. Nevertheless, two-tailed paired t-tests revealed that the two light and the two heavy spheres were perceived to be similar in weight independently of their size (ts < 1.88, ps > .072).
As suggested by one reviewer, data of Experiment 3b were also analysed excluding the 6 left-handed participants, since a previous study reported an association between stimulus type and response location in right-handers but not in left-handers (see Huber et al., 2015). However, the results of these explorative analyses showed that the two interactions between response location and either size (i.e. the task-relevant dimension) or weight (i.e. the task-irrelevant dimension) were both still non-significant (ps > .10).
References
Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modelling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 390–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005.
Baroni, M., Bernardini, S., Ferraresi, A., & Zanchetta, E. (2009). The WaCky wide web: A collection of very large linguistically processed web-crawled corpora. Language resources and evaluation, 43, 209–226. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10579-009-9081-4.
Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 255–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001.
Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617–645. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093639.
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67, 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01.
Bächtold, D., Baumüller, M., & Brugger, P. (1998). Stimulus-response compatibility in representational space. Neuropsychologia, 36, 731–735. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0028-3932(98)00002-5.
Bruzzi, E., Talamini, F., Priftis, K., & Grassi, M. (2017). A SMARC effect for loudness. iPerception, 8, 2041669517742175. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041669517742175.
Brysbaert, M., & Stevens, M. (2018). Power analysis and effect size in mixed effects models: A tutorial. Journal of Cognition, 1, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.10.
Buckingham, G. (2014). Getting a grip on heaviness perception: A review on weight illusions and their probable causes. Experimental Brain Research, 232, 1623–1629. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-014-3926-9.
Buckingham, G., Ranger, N. S., & Goodale, M. A. (2011). The material-weight illusion induced by expectations alone. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 73, 36–41. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-010-0007-4.
Cantlon, J. F., Platt, M. L., & Brannon, E. M. (2009). Beyond the number domain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13, 83–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2008.11.007.
Carraro, L., Dalmaso, M., Castelli, L., Galfano, G., Bobbio, A., & Mantovani, G. (2017). The appeal of the devil’s eye: social evaluation affects social attention. Cognitive Processing, 18, 97–103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-016-0785-2.
Chang, S., & Cho, Y. S. (2015). Polarity correspondence effect between loudness and lateralized response set. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 683. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00683.
Cho, Y. S., Bae, G. Y., & Proctor, R. W. (2012). Referential coding contributes to the horizontal SMARC effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38, 726–734. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026157.
Cohen Kadosh, R., Lammertyn, J., & Izard, V. (2008). Are numbers special? An overview of chronometric, neuroimaging, developmental, and comparative studies of magnitude representation. Progress in Neurobiology, 84, 132–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pneurobio.2007.11.001.
Crainiceanu, C., & Ruppert, D. (2004). Likelihood ratio tests in linear mixed models with one variance component. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B, 66, 165–185. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9868.2004.00438.x.
Dalmaso, M., Galfano, G., Coricelli, C., & Castelli, L. (2014). Temporal dynamics underlying the modulation of social status on social attention. PLoS ONE, 9, e93139. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0093139.
Dalmaso, M., & Vicovaro, M. (2019). Evidence of SQUARC and distance effects in a weight comparison task. Cognitive Processing, 20, 163–173. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-019-00905-2.
Dehaene, S., Bossini, P., & Giraux, P. (1993). The mental representation of parity and number magnitude. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122, 371–396. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.122.3.371.
Dehaene, S., Dupoux, E., & Mehler, J. (1990). Is numerical comparison digital? Analogic and symbolic effects in two-digit number comparison. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 16, 626–641. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.16.3.626.
Di Rosa, E., Bardi, L., Umiltà, C., Masina, F., Forgione, M., & Mapelli, D. (2017). Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) reveals a dissociation between SNARC and MARC effects: Implication for the polarity correspondence account. Cortex, 93, 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2017.05.002.
Estes, Z., Verges, M., & Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Head up, foot down: Object words orient attention to the objects' typical location. Psychological Science, 19, 93–97. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02051.x.
Fernandez-Prieto, I., Spence, C., Pons, F., & Navarra, J. (2017). Does language influence the vertical representation of auditory pitch and loudness? i-Perception. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041669517716183.
Fias, W., Brysbaert, M., Geypens, F., & d’Ydewalle, G. (1996). The importance of magnitude information in numerical processing: Evidence from the SNARC effect. Mathematical Cognition, 2, 95–110. https://doi.org/10.1080/135467996387552.
Fischer, M. H. (2012). A hierarchical view of grounded, embodied, and situated numerical cognition. Cognitive Processing, 13, 161–164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-012-0477-5.
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, 333–336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2009.10.010.
Fumarola, A., Prpic, V., Da Pos, O., Murgia, M., Umiltà, C., & Agostini, T. (2014). Automatic spatial association for luminance. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 76, 759–765. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-013-0614-y.
Gevers, W., Lammertyn, J., Notebaert, W., Verguts, T., & Fias, W. (2006). Automatic response activation of implicit spatial information: Evidence from the SNARC effect. Acta Psychologica, 122, 221–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2005.11.004.
Hartmann, M., & Mast, F. W. (2017). Loudness counts: interactions between loudness, number magnitude, and space. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70, 1305–1322. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2016.1182194.
Hartmann, M., Gashaj, V., Stahnke, A., & Mast, F. W. (2014). There is more than “more is up”: Hand and foot responses reverse the vertical association of number magnitudes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 40, 1401–1414. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036686.
Hesse, P. N., & Bremmer, F. (2017). The SNARC effect in two dimensions: Evidence for a frontoparallel mental number plane. Vision Research, 130, 85–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2016.10.007.
Holmes, K. J., & Lourenco, S. F. (2012). Orienting numbers in mental space: Horizontal organization trumps vertical. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65, 1044–1051. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2012.685079.
Holmes, K. J., & Lourenco, S. F. (2013). When numbers get heavy: Is the mental number line exclusively numerical? PLoS ONE, 8, e58381. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0058381.
Huber, S., Klein, E., Graf, M., Nuerk, H. C., Moeller, K., & Willmes, K. (2015). Embodied markedness of parity? Examining handedness effects on parity judgments. Psychological Research, 79, 963–977. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-014-0626-9.
Hung, Y., Hung, D. L., Tzeng, O. J. L., & Wu, D. H. (2008). Flexible spatial mapping of different notations of numbers in Chinese readers. Cognition, 106, 1441–1450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.04.017.
Ishihara, M., Keller, P. E., Rossetti, Y., & Prinz, W. (2008). Horizontal spatial representations of time: Evidence for the STEARC effect. Cortex, 44, 454–461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2007.08.010.
Ito, Y., & Hatta, T. (2004). Spatial structure of quantitative representation of numbers: Evidence from the SNARC effect. Memory & Cognition, 32, 662–673. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195857.
Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B. (2017). lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13.
Lakens, D. (2012). Polarity correspondence in metaphor congruency effects: Structural overlap predicts categorization times for bipolar concepts presented in vertical space. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 38, 726–736. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024955.
Lenth, R. V. (2016). Least-squares means: The R package lsmeans. Journal of Statistical Software, 69, 1–33. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v069.i01.
Leth-Steensen, C., & Citta, R. (2016). Bad-good constraints on a polarity correspondence account for the spatial-numerical association of response codes (SNARC) and markedness association of response codes (MARC) effects. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69, 482–494. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2015.1055283.
Lidji, P., Kolinsky, R., Lochy, A., & Morais, J. (2007). Spatial associations for musical stimuli: A piano in the head? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33, 1189–1207. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.33.5.1189.
Macnamara, A., Keage, H. A., & Loetscher, T. (2018). Mapping of non-numerical domains on space: A systematic review and metaanalysis. Experimental Brain Research, 236, 335–346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-017-5154-6.
Moyer, R. S., & Landauer, T. K. (1967). Time required for judgments of numerical inequality. Nature, 215, 1519–1520. https://doi.org/10.1038/2151519a0.
Müller, D., & Schwarz, W. (2007). Is there an internal association of numbers to hands? The task set influences the nature of the SNARC effect. Memory & Cognition, 35, 1151–1161. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193485.
Myachykov, A., Scheepers, C., Fischer, M. H., & Kessler, K. (2014). TEST: A tropic, embodied, and situated theory of cognition. Topics in Cognitive Science, 6, 442–460. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12024.
Notebaert, W., Gevers, W., Verguts, T., & Fias, W. (2006). Shared spatial representations for numbers and space: The reversal of the SNARC and the Simon effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, 1197–1207. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.32.5.1197.
Oberle, C. D., McBeath, M. K., Madigan, S. C., & Sugar, T. G. (2005). The Galileo bias: A naive conceptual belief that influences people's perceptions and performance in a ball-dropping task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 643–653. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.31.4.643.
Oldfield, R. C. (1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9, 97–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/0028-3932(71)90067-4.
Proctor, R. W., & Cho, Y. S. (2006). Polarity correspondence: a general principle for performance of speeded binary classification tasks. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 416–442. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.3.416.
Prpic, V., Soranzo, A., Santoro, I., Fantoni, C., Galmonte, A., Agostini, T., et al. (2018). SNARC-like compatibility effects for physical and phenomenal magnitudes: A study on visual illusions. Psychological Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-018-1125-1.
Ren, P., Nicholls, M. E. R., Ma, Y., & 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.
Rohrer, D. (2003). The natural appearance of unnatural incline speed. Memory & Cognition, 31, 816–826. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196119.
Ross, H. E. (2018). Command signals and feedback in the perception of weight and mass. In F. Müller, L. Ludwigs & M. Kupper (Eds.), Fechner Day 2018 Proceedings of the 34th annual meeting of the International Society for Psychophysics (pp. 174–178). Lüneburg : International Society for Psychophysics.
Rusconi, E., Kwan, B., Giordano, B. L., Umiltà, 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.
Santiago, J., & Lakens, D. (2015). Can conceptual congruency effects between number, time, and space be accounted for by polarity correspondence? Acta Psychologica, 156, 179–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ACTPSY.2014.09.016.
Scheipl, F., Greven, S., & Kuechenhoff, H. (2008). Size and power of tests for a zero random effect variance or polynomial regression in additive and linear mixed models. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis, 52, 3283–3299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csda.2007.10.022.
Schneider, I. K., Rutjens, B. T., Jostmann, N. B., & Lakens, D. (2011). Weighty matters: Importance literally feels heavy. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2, 474–478. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550610397895.
Schwarz, W., & Keus, I. M. (2004). Moving the eyes along the mental number line: Comparing SNARC effects with saccadic and manual responses. Perception & Psychophysics, 66, 651–664. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194909.
Scorolli, C., Borghi, A. M., & Glenberg, A. (2009). Language-induced motor activity in bi-manual object lifting. Experimental Brain Research, 193, 43–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-008-1593-4.
Sell, A. J., & Kaschak, M. P. (2012). The comprehension of sentences involving quantity information affects responses on the up-down axis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, 708–714. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-012-0263-5.
Sellaro, R., Treccani, B., Job, R., & Cubelli, R. (2015). Spatial coding of object typical size: Evidence for a SNARC-like effect. Psychological Research, 79, 950–962. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-014-0636-7.
Shaki, S., & Fischer, M. H. (2012). Multiple spatial mappings in numerical cognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38, 804–809. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027562.
Shaki, S., & Fischer, M. H. (2018). Deconstructing spatial-numerical associations. Cognition, 175, 109–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.02.022.
Shapiro, L. (2019). Embodied cognition. New York: Routledge.
Sixtus, E., Lonnemann, E., Fischer, M. H., & Werner, K. (2019). Mental number representations in 2D space. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 172. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00172.
Toomarian, E. Y., & Hubbard, E. M. (2018). On the genesis of spatial-numerical associations: Evolutionary and cultural factors co-construct the mental number line. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 90, 184–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2018.04.010.
Vallesi, A., Binns, M. A., & 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.
Vicovaro, M. (2014). Intuitive physics of free fall: An information-integration approach to the mass-speed belief. Psicológica, 35, 463–477.
Vicovaro, M., & Burigana, L. (2014). Properties of the size-weight illusion as shown by lines of subjective equality. Acta Psychologica, 149, 52–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2014.03.001.
Vicovaro, M., & Burigana, L. (2017). Contribution of surface material and size to the expected versus the perceived weight of objects. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 79, 306–319. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-016-1212-6.
Vicovaro, M., Noventa, S., & Battaglini, L. (2019). Intuitive physics of gravitational motion as shown by perceptual judgment and prediction-motion tasks. Acta Psychologica, 194, 51–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2019.02.001.
Walsh, V. (2003). A theory of magnitude: Common cortical metrics of time, space and quantity. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 483–488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2003.09.002.
Walsh, V. (2015). A theory of magnitude: The parts that sum to number. In R. Cohen Kadosh & A. Dowker. The Oxford handbook of numerical cognition (pp. 552–565). https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199642342.013.64
Westfall, J., Kenny, D. A., & Judd, C. M. (2014). Statistical power and optimal design in experiments in which samples of participants respond to samples of stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143, 2020–2045. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000014.
Winter, B., Matlock, T., Shaki, S., & Fischer, M. H. (2015). Mental number space in three dimensions. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 57, 209–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2015.09.005.
Wood, G., Willmes, K., Nuerk, H. C., & Fischer, M. H. (2008). On the cognitive link between space and number: A meta-analysis of the SNARC effect. Psychology Science Quarterly, 50, 489–525. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169.52.3.187.
Zhao, T., He, X., Zhao, X., Huang, J., Zhang, W., Wu, S., et al. (2018). The influence of time units on the flexibility of the spatial numerical association of response codes effect. British Journal of Psychology, 109, 299–320. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12273.
Acknowledgements
We thank Giada Alessi, Eleonora Baldini and Giacomo Fedrigo for assistance in data collection. We also thank Massimo Grassi for providing us with the vertical response box employed here.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
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 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.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Vicovaro, M., Dalmaso, M. Is ‘heavy’ up or down? Testing the vertical spatial representation of weight. Psychological Research 85, 1183–1200 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-020-01309-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-020-01309-0