Abstract
Researchers have generally come to the conclusion that integers automatically activate the quantity they symbolize and that this quantity dominates responding. I conducted a strong test of this hypothesis with two numerical same/different experiments. On each trial, I presented the participant an integer between 1 and 9 and asked him or her to identify whether that symbol was a 5. If quantity information dominates responding, participants’ reaction times (RTs) should be a function of the numerical distance between the target and the distractor. If quantity information is not activated, the integer is merely a shape, and participants’ RTs should be a function of the physical similarity of the target and the distractor. The data from Experiments 1 and 2 demonstrate that quantity information exerts no control and that physical similarity is the primary controlling factor. These findings demonstrate that integers maintain a level of independence from their quantity representations.
Article PDF
References
Buckley, P. B., & Gillman, C. B. (1974). Comparisons of digits and dot patterns. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 103, 1131–1136.
Dehaene, S. (1989). The psychophysics of numerical comparison: A reexamination of apparently incompatible data. Perception & Psychophysics, 45, 557–566.
Dehaene, S., & Akhavein, R. (1995). Attention, automaticity, and levels of representation in number processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 21, 314–326.
Dehaene, S., Dupoux, E., & Mehler, J. (1990). Is numerical comparison digital? Analogical and symbolic effects in two-digit number comparison. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 16, 626–641.
Dehaene, S., Spelke, E., Pinel, P., Stanescu, R., & Tsivkin, S. (1999). Sources of mathematical thinking: Behavioral and brain-imaging evidence. Science, 284, 970–974.
Dixon, P. (2003). The p-value fallacy and how to avoid it. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 75, 189–202.
Duncan, E. M., & McFarland, C. E. (1980). Isolating the effects of symbolic distance and semantic congruity in comparative judgments: An additive-factors analysis. Memory & Cognition, 8, 612–622.
Ganor-Stern, D., & Tzelgov, J. (2008). Across-notation automatic numerical processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 34, 430–437.
Goodman, S. N., & Royall, R. (1988). Evidence and scientific research. American Journal of Public Health, 78, 1568–1574.
Henik, A., & Tzelgov, J. (1982). Is three greater than five: The relation between physical and semantic size in comparison tasks. Memory & Cognition, 10, 389–395.
Hinrichs, J. V., Yurko, D. S., & Hu, J. (1981). Two-digit number comparison: Use of place information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 7, 890–901.
Ifrah, G. (2000). The universal history of numbers. New York: Wiley.
Moyer, R. S., & Landauer, T. K. (1967). Time required for judgments of numerical inequality. Nature, 215, 1519–1520.
Moyer, R. S., & Landauer, T. K. (1973). Determinants of reaction time for digit inequality judgments. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 1, 167–168.
Nieder, A. (2005). Counting on neurons: The neurobiology of numerical competence. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 6, 177–190. doi:10.1038/ nrn1626
Pavese, A., & Umiltà, C. (1998). Symbolic distance between numerosity and identity modulates Stroop interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 24, 1535–1545.
Ratinckx, E., Brysbaert, M., & Fias, W. (2005). Naming two-digit Arabic numerals: Evidence from masked priming studies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 31, 1150–1163.
Schwartz, W., & Stein, F. (1998). On the temporal dynamics of digit comparison. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 24, 1275–1293.
Shepard, R. N., Kilpatric, D. W., & Cunningham, J. P. (1975). The internal representation of numbers. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 82–138.
Sternberg, S. (1995). Inferring mental operations from reaction-time data: How we compare objects. In D. Scarborough & S. Sternberg (Eds.), Methods, models, and conceptual issues (pp. 365–454). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Takahashi, A., & Green, D. (1983). Numerical judgments with Kanji and Kana. Neuropsychologia, 21, 259–263.
Tzelgov, J., & Ganor-Stern, D. (2005). Automaticity in processing ordinal information. In J. I. D. Campbell (Ed.), Handbook of mathematical cognition (pp. 55–67). New York: Psychology Press.
Welford, A. T. (1960). The measurement of sensory-motor performance: Survey and reappraisal of twelve years’ progress. Ergonomics, 3, 189–230.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This work was supported by NIH Grant RO1HD047796.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cohen, D.J. Integers do not automatically activate their quantity representation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 16, 332–336 (2009). https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.16.2.332
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.16.2.332