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

Overview

Journal Behav Sci (Basel)

Date 2023 Dec 22

PMID 38131839

Authors

Yulia Kuzmina

Julia Marakshina

Marina Lobaskova

Ilya Zakharov

Tatiana Tikhomirova

Sergey Malykh

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

The nonsymbolic comparison task is used to investigate the precision of the Approximate Number Sense, the ability to process discrete numerosity without counting and symbols. There is an ongoing debate regarding the extent to which the ANS is influenced by the processing of non-numerical visual cues. To address this question, we assessed the congruency effect in a nonsymbolic comparison task, examining its variability across different stimulus presentation formats and numerical proportions. Additionally, we examined the variability of the numerical ratio effect with the format and congruency. Utilizing generalized linear mixed-effects models with a sample of 290 students (89% female, mean age 19.33 years), we estimated the congruency effect and numerical ratio effect for separated and intermixed formats of stimulus presentation, and for small and large numerical proportions. The findings indicated that the congruency effect increased in large numerical proportion conditions, but this pattern was observed only in the separated format. In the intermixed format, the congruency effect was insignificant for both types of numerical proportion. Notably, the numerical ratio effect varied for congruent and incongruent trials in different formats. The results may suggest that the processing of visual non-numerical parameters may be crucial when numerosity processing becomes noisier, specifically when numerical proportion becomes larger. The implications of these findings for refining the ANS theory are discussed.

References

Van Opstal F, Gevers W, De Moor W, Verguts T . Dissecting the symbolic distance effect: comparison and priming effects in numerical and nonnumerical orders. Psychon Bull Rev. 2008; 15(2):419-25. DOI: 10.3758/pbr.15.2.419. View

Maloney E, Risko E, Preston F, Ansari D, Fugelsang J . Challenging the reliability and validity of cognitive measures: the case of the numerical distance effect. Acta Psychol (Amst). 2010; 134(2):154-61. DOI: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.01.006. View

Izard V, Dehaene S . Calibrating the mental number line. Cognition. 2007; 106(3):1221-47. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.06.004. View

Halberda J, Mazzocco M, Feigenson L . Individual differences in non-verbal number acuity correlate with maths achievement. Nature. 2008; 455(7213):665-8. DOI: 10.1038/nature07246. View

Verguts T, Van Opstal F . Dissociation of the distance effect and size effect in one-digit numbers. Psychon Bull Rev. 2006; 12(5):925-30. DOI: 10.3758/bf03196787. View

Van Rinsveld A, Guillaume M, Kohler P, Schiltz C, Gevers W, Content A . The neural signature of numerosity by separating numerical and continuous magnitude extraction in visual cortex with frequency-tagged EEG. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020; 117(11):5726-5732. PMC: 7084102. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1917849117. View

Leibovich T, Henik A . Magnitude processing in non-symbolic stimuli. Front Psychol. 2013; 4:375. PMC: 3691512. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00375. View

Brauer M, Curtin J . Linear mixed-effects models and the analysis of nonindependent data: A unified framework to analyze categorical and continuous independent variables that vary within-subjects and/or within-items. Psychol Methods. 2017; 23(3):389-411. DOI: 10.1037/met0000159. View

Sokolowski H, Fias W, Mousa A, Ansari D . Common and distinct brain regions in both parietal and frontal cortex support symbolic and nonsymbolic number processing in humans: A functional neuroimaging meta-analysis. Neuroimage. 2016; 146:376-394. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.10.028. View

10.

Kuzmina Y, Malykh S . The effect of visual parameters on nonsymbolic numerosity estimation varies depending on the format of stimulus presentation. J Exp Child Psychol. 2022; 224:105514. DOI: 10.1016/j.jecp.2022.105514. View

11.

Gebuis T, Cohen Kadosh R, Gevers W . Sensory-integration system rather than approximate number system underlies numerosity processing: A critical review. Acta Psychol (Amst). 2016; 171:17-35. DOI: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2016.09.003. View

12.

Dehaene S . The neural basis of the Weber-Fechner law: a logarithmic mental number line. Trends Cogn Sci. 2003; 7(4):145-147. DOI: 10.1016/s1364-6613(03)00055-x. View

13.

Price G, Palmer D, Battista C, Ansari D . Nonsymbolic numerical magnitude comparison: reliability and validity of different task variants and outcome measures, and their relationship to arithmetic achievement in adults. Acta Psychol (Amst). 2012; 140(1):50-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2012.02.008. View

14.

Gebuis T, Reynvoet B . The interplay between nonsymbolic number and its continuous visual properties. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2011; 141(4):642-8. DOI: 10.1037/a0026218. View

15.

Park J, DeWind N, Woldorff M, Brannon E . Rapid and Direct Encoding of Numerosity in the Visual Stream. Cereb Cortex. 2015; 26(2):748-763. PMC: 4712802. DOI: 10.1093/cercor/bhv017. View

16.

Harvey B, Dumoulin S . Can responses to basic non-numerical visual features explain neural numerosity responses?. Neuroimage. 2017; 149:200-209. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.02.012. View

17.

Lipton J, Spelke E . Origins of number sense. Large-number discrimination in human infants. Psychol Sci. 2003; 14(5):396-401. DOI: 10.1111/1467-9280.01453. View

18.

Nieder A, Miller E . Coding of cognitive magnitude: compressed scaling of numerical information in the primate prefrontal cortex. Neuron. 2003; 37(1):149-57. DOI: 10.1016/s0896-6273(02)01144-3. View

19.

Viarouge A, Lee H, Borst G . Attention to number requires magnitude-specific inhibition. Cognition. 2022; 230:105285. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2022.105285. View

20.

Gilmore C, Cragg L, Hogan G, Inglis M . Congruency effects in dot comparison tasks: convex hull is more important than dot area. J Cogn Psychol (Hove). 2017; 28(8):923-931. PMC: 5213839. DOI: 10.1080/20445911.2016.1221828. View