Advertisement

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

, Volume 15, Issue 2, pp 413–418 | Cite as

Look, no hands: A perceptual task shows that number magnitude induces shifts of attention

  • Michael E. R. NichollsEmail author
  • Andrea M. Loftus
  • Wim Gevers
Brief Reports

Abstract

The mental representation of numbers along a line oriented left to right affects spatial cognition, facilitating responses in the ipsilateral hemispace (the spatial-numerical association of response codes [SNARC] effect). We investigated whether the number/space association is the result of an attentional shift or response selection. Previous research has often introduced covert left/right response cues by presenting targets to the left or the right. The present study avoided left/right cues by requiring forced choice upper/lower luminance discriminations to two mirror-reversed luminance gradients (the grayscale task). The grayscale stimuli were overlaid with strings of (1) low numbers, (2) high numbers, and (3) nonnumerical characters. In Experiment 1, 20 dextrals judged the number’s magnitude and then indicated whether the upper/lower grayscale was darker. Results showed leftward and rightward attentional biases for low and high numbers, respectively. Demands to process numbers along a left/right line were made less explicit in Experiment 2 (N=8 dextrals), using (1) a parity judgment and (2) arbitrary linguistic labels for top/bottom. Once again, a spatial congruency effect was observed. Because the response (up/down) was orthogonal to the dimension of interest (left/right), the effect of number cannot be attributed to late-stage response congruencies. This study required unspeeded responses to stimuli presented in free vision, whereas other experiments have used speeded responses. Understanding the time course of number-space effects may, therefore, be important to the debate associated with response selection.

Keywords

Response Selection Congruency Effect Simon Effect Space Effect Line Bisection 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bauer, D. W., & Miller, J. (1982). Stimulus-response compatibility and the motor system. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 34A, 367–380.Google Scholar
  2. Bowers, D., & Heilman, K. M. (1980). Pseudoneglect: Effects of hemispace on a tactile line bisection task. Neuropsychologia, 18, 491–498.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Calabria, M., & Rossetti, Y. (2005). Interference between number processing and line bisection: A methodology. Neuropsychologia, 43, 779–783.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Casarotti, M., Michielin, M., Zorzi, M., & Umiltà, C. (2007). Temporal order judgements reveal how number magnitude affects visuospatial attention. Cognition, 102, 101–117.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dehaene, S., Bossini, S., & Giraux, P. (1993). The mental representation of parity and number magnitude. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122, 371–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fischer, M. H. (2001). Number processing induces spatial performance biases. Neurology, 57, 822–826.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fischer, M. H., Castel, A. D., Dodd, M. D., & Pratt, J. (2003). Perceiving numbers causes shifts of attention. Nature Neuroscience, 6, 555–556.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Galfano, G., Rusconi, E., & Umiltà, C. (2006). Number magnitude orients attention, but not against one’s will. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 869–874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gevers, W., Reynvoet, B., & Fias, W. (2003). The mental representation of sequences is spatially organized. Cognition, 87, 87–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hommel, B., Müsseler, J., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). A theory of event coding (TEC): A framework for perception and action planning. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 24, 849–937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ito, Y., & Hatta, T. (2004). Spatial structure of quantitative representation of numbers: Evidence from the SNARC effect. Memory & Cognition, 32, 662–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jewell, G., & McCourt, M. E. (2000). Pseudoneglect: A review and meta-analysis of performance factors in line bisection tasks. Neuropsychologia, 38, 93–110.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kennett, S., Martin, E., Spence, C., & Driver, J. (2001). Tactile-visual links in exogenous spatial attention under different postures: Convergent evidence from psychophysics and ERPs. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 13, 462–478.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Keus, I. M., Jenks, K. M., & Schwarz, W. (2005). Psychophysical evidence that the SNARC effect has its functional locus in the response selection stage. Cognitive Brain Research, 24, 48–56.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Keus, I. M., & Schwarz, W. (2005). Searching for the functional locus of the SNARC effect: Evidence for a response-related origin. Memory & Cognition, 33, 681–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mapelli, D., Rusconi, E., & Umiltà, C. (2003). The SNARC effect: An instance of the Simon effect? Cognition, 88, B1-B10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mattingley, J. B., Berberovic, N., Corben, L., Slavin, M. J., Nicholls, M. E. R., & Bradshaw, J. L. (2004). The greyscales task: A perceptual measure of attentional bias following unilateral hemispheric damage. Neuropsychologia, 42, 387–394.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McCourt, M. E. (2001). Performance consistency of normal observers in forced-choice tachistoscopic visual line bisection. Neuropsychologia, 39, 1065–1076.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McCourt, M. E., & Jewell, G. (1999). Visuospatial attention in line bisection: Stimulus modulation of pseudoneglect. Neuropsychologia, 37, 843–855.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nicholls, M. E. R., Bradshaw, J. L., & Mattingley, J. B. (1999). Free-viewing perceptual asymmetries for the judgement of shade, numerosity and size. Neuropsychologia, 37, 307–314.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Oldfield, R. C. (1971). The assessment of handedness: The Edinburgh Inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9, 97–133.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Proctor, R. W., & Cho, Y. S. (2006). Polarity correspondence: A general principle for performance of speeded binary classification tasks. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 416–442.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ristic, J., Wright, A., & Kingstone, A. (2006). The number line effect reflects top-down control. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 862–868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Stoianov, I., Kramer, P., Umiltà, C., & Zorzi, M. (2008). Visuospatial priming of the mental number line. Cognition, 106, 770–779.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael E. R. Nicholls
    • 2
    Email author
  • Andrea M. Loftus
    • 2
  • Wim Gevers
    • 1
  1. 1.Ghent UniversityGhentBelgium
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of MelbourneParkvilleAustralia

Personalised recommendations