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.
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
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
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
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
Gevers, W., Reynvoet, B., & Fias, W. (2003). The mental representation of sequences is spatially organized. Cognition, 87, 87–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
Ito, Y., & Hatta, T. (2004). Spatial structure of quantitative representation of numbers: Evidence from the SNARC effect. Memory & Cognition, 32, 662–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
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
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
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
Mapelli, D., Rusconi, E., & Umiltà, C. (2003). The SNARC effect: An instance of the Simon effect? Cognition, 88, B1-B10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
McCourt, M. E. (2001). Performance consistency of normal observers in forced-choice tachistoscopic visual line bisection. Neuropsychologia, 39, 1065–1076.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCourt, M. E., & Jewell, G. (1999). Visuospatial attention in line bisection: Stimulus modulation of pseudoneglect. Neuropsychologia, 37, 843–855.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
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
Ristic, J., Wright, A., & Kingstone, A. (2006). The number line effect reflects top-down control. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 862–868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
Stoianov, I., Kramer, P., Umiltà, C., & Zorzi, M. (2008). Visuospatial priming of the mental number line. Cognition, 106, 770–779.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar