The Psychophysics of Numerical Comparison: a Reexamination of Apparently Incompatible Data
Overview
Psychology
Authors
Affiliations
Reaction-time studies of numerical comparison have used essentially two paradigms: classification, in which a target number must be labelled "larger" or "smaller" in comparison to a fixed standard, and selection, in which the larger (or smaller) number of a pair must be picked out. In previous studies, classification has yielded only a distance effect in RTs, whereas selection has also revealed magnitude (or minimum) and congruity effects. We used two experiments with two-digit number comparisons to find the reason for this discrepancy. In Experiment 1, we used a variant of the classification task with the standard changing on each trial. RTs increased along with the standard for "smaller" responses and decreased along with the standard for "larger" responses, in a manner reminiscent of magnitude and congruity effects. In Experiment 2, we again used classification, but the fixed standard 75 was not at the center of the range of target numbers (20, 21, ... 99). Close to the standard, RTs were faster for "larger" than for "smaller" responses, again a congruity effect. Our data show that magnitude and congruity effects can be obtained with two-digit numbers in classification as well as in selection tasks. A single equation, which implies that numbers are compared with respect to reference points at both ends of the continuum, describes the results from both tasks.
Symbolic representations of infinity: the impact of notation and numerical syntax.
Feder A, Graithzer Y, Pinhas M Psychol Res. 2024; 89(1):30.
PMID: 39617847 PMC: 11609123. DOI: 10.1007/s00426-024-02050-8.
Large-scale patterns of number use in spoken and written English.
Woodin G, Winter B, Littlemore J, Perlman M, Grieve J Corpus Linguist Linguist Theory. 2024; 20(1):123-152.
PMID: 38344039 PMC: 10853912. DOI: 10.1515/cllt-2022-0082.
Impact of deafness on numerical tasks implying visuospatial and verbal processes.
Buyle M, Vencato V, Crollen V Sci Rep. 2022; 12(1):11150.
PMID: 35778415 PMC: 9249892. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-14728-3.
Perez Santangelo A, Solovey G J Cogn. 2022; 5(1):9.
PMID: 35083412 PMC: 8740653. DOI: 10.5334/joc.200.
Ganayim D, Dowker A Brain Sci. 2021; 11(11).
PMID: 34827517 PMC: 8615580. DOI: 10.3390/brainsci11111518.