» Articles » PMID: 23420710

Comparing the Neural Distance Effect Derived from the Non-symbolic Comparison and the Same-different Task

Overview
Specialty Neurology
Date 2013 Feb 20
PMID 23420710
Citations 6
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

As a result of the representation of numerosities, more accurate and faster discrimination between two numerosities is observed when the distance between them increases. In previous studies, the comparison and same-different task were most frequently used to investigate this distance effect. Recently, it was questioned whether the non-symbolic distance effects derived from these tasks originate at the same level. In the current study, we examined the behavioral and neural distance effects of the comparison and same-different task to assess potential differences between both tasks. Participants were first year university students. Each participant completed both tasks, while their reaction time, accuracy and brain activity on predefined components was measured. The early N1-P2p transition and the P2p component on temporo-occipital (TO) and inferior parietal (IP) electrode groups were considered, as well as the late P3 component on a central (C) electrode group. The results showed that the behavioral distance effects from both tasks were comparable, although participants' performance was worse on the same-different task. The neural results revealed similar effects of distance on the mean amplitudes for the early components for both tasks (all p's < 0.02) and an additional effect of task difficulty on the mean amplitudes of these components. Similar as in previous studies, we found a (marginally) significant increase in mean amplitude of the later P3 component with increasing distance for the comparison (p = 0.07), but not for the same-different task. Apparently, the initial stages of number processing are comparable for both tasks, but an additional later stage is only present for the comparison task. The P3 effect would be indicative of this decisional stage, which was previously proposed to underlie the comparison distance effect (CDE).

Citing Articles

The Interaction between Congruency and Numerical Ratio Effects in the Nonsymbolic Comparison Test.

Kuzmina Y, Marakshina J, Lobaskova M, Zakharov I, Tikhomirova T, Malykh S Behav Sci (Basel). 2023; 13(12).

PMID: 38131839 PMC: 10740770. DOI: 10.3390/bs13120983.


Number and Continuous Magnitude Processing Depends on Task Goals and Numerosity Ratio.

Leibovich-Raveh T, Stein I, Henik A, Salti M J Cogn. 2019; 1(1):19.

PMID: 31517193 PMC: 6634598. DOI: 10.5334/joc.22.


Dot Display Affects Approximate Number System Acuity and Relationships with Mathematical Achievement and Inhibitory Control.

Norris J, Castronovo J PLoS One. 2016; 11(5):e0155543.

PMID: 27195749 PMC: 4873147. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0155543.


Effects of Presentation Type and Visual Control in Numerosity Discrimination: Implications for Number Processing?.

Smets K, Moors P, Reynvoet B Front Psychol. 2016; 7:66.

PMID: 26869967 PMC: 4734174. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00066.


Aging and the number sense: preserved basic non-symbolic numerical processing and enhanced basic symbolic processing.

Norris J, McGeown W, Guerrini C, Castronovo J Front Psychol. 2015; 6:999.

PMID: 26236269 PMC: 4502343. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00999.


References
1.
Gebuis T, Reynvoet B . Continuous visual properties explain neural responses to nonsymbolic number. Psychophysiology. 2012; 49(11):1481-91. DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2012.01461.x. View

2.
Cohen Kadosh R, Brodsky W, Levin M, Henik A . Mental representation: what can pitch tell us about the distance effect?. Cortex. 2008; 44(4):470-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.cortex.2007.08.002. View

3.
Lansbergen M, Kenemans J . Stroop interference and the timing of selective response activation. Clin Neurophysiol. 2008; 119(10):2247-54. DOI: 10.1016/j.clinph.2008.07.218. View

4.
Libertus M, Woldorff M, Brannon E . Electrophysiological evidence for notation independence in numerical processing. Behav Brain Funct. 2007; 3:1. PMC: 1781950. DOI: 10.1186/1744-9081-3-1. View

5.
Shaki S, Leth-Steensen C, Petrusic W . Effects of instruction presentation mode in comparative judgments. Mem Cognit. 2006; 34(1):196-206. DOI: 10.3758/bf03193398. View