Literature DB >> 25476998

Spatial coding of object typical size: evidence for a SNARC-like effect.

Roberta Sellaro1,2, Barbara Treccani3,4, Remo Job5, Roberto Cubelli5.   

Abstract

The present study aimed to assess whether the representation of the typical size of objects can interact with response position codes in two-choice bimanual tasks, and give rise to a SNARC-like effect (faster responses when the representation of the typical size of the object to which the target stimulus refers corresponds to response side). Participants performed either a magnitude comparison task (in which they were required to judge whether the target was smaller or larger than a reference stimulus; Experiment 1) or a semantic decision task (in which they had to classify the target as belonging to either the category of living or non-living entities; Experiment 2). Target stimuli were pictures or written words referring to either typically large and small animals or inanimate objects. In both tasks, participants responded by pressing a left- or right-side button. Results showed that, regardless of the to-be-performed task (magnitude comparison or semantic decision) and stimulus format (picture or word), left responses were faster when the target represented typically small-sized entities, whereas right responses were faster for typically large-sized entities. These results provide evidence that the information about the typical size of objects is activated even if it is not requested by the task, and are consistent with the idea that objects' typical size is automatically spatially coded, as has been proposed to occur for number magnitudes. In this representation, small objects would be on the left and large objects would be on the right. Alternative interpretations of these results are also discussed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25476998     DOI: 10.1007/s00426-014-0636-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychol Res        ISSN: 0340-0727


  50 in total

1.  The SNARC effect does not imply a mental number line.

Authors:  Seppe Santens; Wim Gevers
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2008-03-03

2.  Speed of processing explains the picture-word asymmetry in conditional naming.

Authors:  Claudio Mulatti; Lorella Lotto; Francesca Peressotti; Remo Job
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2008-11-12

3.  A working memory account for spatial-numerical associations.

Authors:  Jean-Philippe van Dijck; Wim Fias
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2011-01-22

4.  Is numerical comparison digital? Analogical and symbolic effects in two-digit number comparison.

Authors:  S Dehaene; E Dupoux; J Mehler
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1990-08       Impact factor: 3.332

5.  Conditional and unconditional automaticity: a dual-process model of effects of spatial stimulus-response correspondence.

Authors:  R De Jong; C C Liang; E Lauber
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1994-08       Impact factor: 3.332

6.  Time required for judgements of numerical inequality.

Authors:  R S Moyer; T K Landauer
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1967-09-30       Impact factor: 49.962

Review 7.  Beyond the number domain.

Authors:  Jessica F Cantlon; Michael L Platt; Elizabeth M Brannon
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2009-01-08       Impact factor: 20.229

8.  Quantities, amounts, and the numerical core system.

Authors:  Avishai Henik; Tali Leibovich; Sharon Naparstek; Liana Diesendruck; Orly Rubinsten
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2012-01-20       Impact factor: 3.169

9.  The role of the sound of objects in object identification: evidence from picture naming.

Authors:  Claudio Mulatti; Barbara Treccani; Remo Job
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2014-10-08

10.  When numbers get heavy: is the mental number line exclusively numerical?

Authors:  Kevin J Holmes; Stella F Lourenco
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-03-06       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  11 in total

1.  The distance effect on discrimination ability and response bias during magnitude comparison in a go/no-go task.

Authors:  Ilgım Hepdarcan; Merve Bulut; Ezgi Palaz; Seda Can; Seda Dural
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2021-03-23       Impact factor: 2.199

Review 2.  Mapping of non-numerical domains on space: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Anne Macnamara; Hannah A D Keage; Tobias Loetscher
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2017-12-26       Impact factor: 1.972

3.  When task sharing reduces interference: evidence for division-of-labour in Stroop-like tasks.

Authors:  Roberta Sellaro; Barbara Treccani; Roberto Cubelli
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2018-07-03

4.  Evidence of SQUARC and distance effects in a weight comparison task.

Authors:  Mario Dalmaso; Michele Vicovaro
Journal:  Cogn Process       Date:  2019-02-05

5.  When time stands upright: STEARC effects along the vertical axis.

Authors:  Mario Dalmaso; Youval Schnapper; Michele Vicovaro
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2022-06-19

6.  Is 'heavy' up or down? Testing the vertical spatial representation of weight.

Authors:  Michele Vicovaro; Mario Dalmaso
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2020-03-13

7.  Effects of word-evoked object size on covert numerosity estimations.

Authors:  Magda L Dumitru; Gitte H Joergensen
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2015-07-03

8.  Automaticity of Conceptual Magnitude.

Authors:  Yarden Gliksman; Shai Itamar; Tali Leibovich; Yonatan Melman; Avishai Henik
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2016-02-16       Impact factor: 4.379

9.  Counting distance: Effects of egocentric distance on numerical perception.

Authors:  Nurit Gronau; Anna Izoutcheev; Tsafnat Nave; Avishai Henik
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-04-14       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Compatibility between object size and response side in grasping: the left hand prefers smaller objects, the right hand prefers larger objects.

Authors:  Christian Seegelke; Peter Wühr
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2018-12-03       Impact factor: 2.984

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.