Interference Between Number Magnitude and Parity
Discrete Representation in Number Processing
Abstract
Abstract. Interference between number magnitude and other properties can be explained by either an analogue magnitude system interfering with a continuous representation of the other properties or by discrete, categorical representations in which the corresponding number and property categories interfere. In this study, we investigated whether parity, a discrete property which supposedly cannot be stored on an analogue representation, could interfere with number magnitude. We found that in a parity decision task the magnitude interfered with the parity, highlighting the role of discrete representations in numerical interference. Additionally, some participants associated evenness with large values, while others associated evenness with small values, therefore, a new interference index, the dual index was introduced to detect this heterogeneous interference. The dual index can be used to reveal any heterogeneous interference that were missed in previous studies. Finally, the magnitude-parity interference did not correlate with the magnitude-response side interference (Spatial-Numerical Association of Response Codes [SNARC] effect) or with the parity-response side interference (Markedness Association of Response Codes [MARC] effect), suggesting that at least some of the interference effects are not the result of the stimulus property markedness.
References
1999). Extracting parity and magnitude from Arabic numerals: Developmental changes in number processing and mental representation. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 74, 286–308. https://doi.org/10.1006/jecp.1999.2518
(2009). The parietal cortex and the representation of time, space, number and other magnitudes. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 364, 1831–1840. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2009.0028
(2009). Beyond the number domain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13, 83–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2008.11.007
(2007). When is an odd number not odd? Influence of task rule on the MARC effect for numeric classification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 832–842. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.33.5.832
(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
(1993). The mental representation of parity and mental number magnitude. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122, 371–396. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.122.3.371
(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
(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
(2014). Automatic spatial association for luminance. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 76, 759–765. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-013-0614-y
(2006). Numbers and space: A computational model of the SNARC effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, 32–44. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.32.1.32
(2012). Quantities, amounts, and the numerical core system. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2011.00186
(1982). Is three greater than five: The relation between physical and semantic size in comparison tasks. Memory & Cognition, 10, 389–395. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03202431
(1990). An odd effect: Lengthened reaction times for judgments about odd digits. Memory & Cognition, 18, 40–46. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03202644
(2014). The impact of mathematical proficiency on the number-space association. PLoS One, 9, e85048. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0085048
(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
(2016). The source of the symbolic numerical distance and size effects. Frontiers in Psychology, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01795
(2008).
(Why spatial-numeric associations aren’t evidence for a mental number line . In B. C. LoveK. McRaeV. M. SloutskyEds., Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 357–362). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.2011). Modelling SNARC by using polarity codes to adjust drift rates. Proceedings of Fechner Day, 27, 357–362. Retrieved from http://www.ispsychophysics.org/fd/index.php/proceedings/article/view/443
(2000). A model of response time effects in symbolic comparison. Psychological Review, 107, 62–100. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.107.1.162
(1990). Regression-analyses of repeated measures data in cognitive research. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 16, 149–157. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.16.1.149
(1967). Time required for judgements of numerical inequality. Nature, 215, 1519–1520. https://doi.org/10.1038/2151519a0
(2005). The power of the mental number line: How the magnitude of unattended numbers affects performance in an Eriksen task. Psychology Science, 47, 34–50.
(2004). Notational modulation of the SNARC – and the MARC – (linguistic markedness of response codes) effect. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A: Human Experimental Psychology, 57, 835–863. https://doi.org/10.1080/02724980343000512
(2008). Perceiving numbers alters time perception. Neuroscience Letters, 438, 308–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2008.04.051
(2014). How number-space relationships are assessed before formal schooling: A taxonomy proposal. Developmental Psychology, 5, 419. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00419
(2009). Generating stimuli for neuroscience using PsychoPy. Frontiers in Neuroinformatics, 2, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/neuro.11.010.2008
(2011). Estimating linear effects in ANOVA designs: The easy way. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 788–794. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0172-y
(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
(2015). Grammatical number elicits SNARC and MARC effects as a function of task demands. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68, 1231–1248. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2014.979843
(2006). Spatial representation of pitch height: The SMARC effect. Cognition, 99, 113–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2005.01.004
(2013). Polarity correspondence does not explain the SNARC effect. Proceedings of the 36th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Austin, TX. Retrieved from http://www.ugr.es/~santiago/SantiagoLakens-CogSci2013.pdf
(2011). Cultural characteristics dissociate magnitude and ordinal information processing. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42, 639–650. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022111406100
(2004). Representation of number in animals and humans: A neuronal model. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16, 1493–1504. https://doi.org/10.1162/0898929042568497
(2008). Symbolic and nonsymbolic pathways of number processing. Philosophical Psychology, 21, 539–554. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515080802285545
(2005). A model of exact small-number representation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 66–80. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196349
(2014). A delta-rule model of numerical and non-numerical order processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 40, 1092–1112. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035114
(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
(