Numerical Magnitude and the Kappa Effect

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Doug Alards-Tomalin ◽  
Jason P. Leboe ◽  
Launa C. Leboe-McGowan
Author(s):  
Iring Koch ◽  
Vera Lawo

In cued auditory task switching, one of two dichotically presented number words, spoken by a female and a male, had to be judged according to its numerical magnitude. One experimental group selected targets by speaker gender and another group by ear of presentation. In mixed-task blocks, the target-defining feature (male/female vs. left/right) was cued prior to each trial, but in pure blocks it remained constant. Compared to selection by gender, selection by ear led to better performance in pure blocks than in mixed blocks, resulting in larger “global” mixing costs for ear-based selection. Selection by ear also led to larger “local” switch costs in mixed blocks, but this finding was partially mediated by differential cue-repetition benefits. Together, the data suggest that requirements of attention shifting diminish the auditory spatial selection benefit.


2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Doug Alards-Tomalin ◽  
Jason P. Leboe-McGowan ◽  
Joshua Shaw ◽  
Launa C. Leboe-McGowan

2021 ◽  
pp. 174702182110087
Author(s):  
Lauren Aulet ◽  
Sami R Yousif ◽  
Stella Lourenco

Multiple tasks have been used to demonstrate the relation between numbers and space. The classic interpretation of these directional spatial-numerical associations (d-SNAs) is that they are the product of a mental number line (MNL), in which numerical magnitude is intrinsically associated with spatial position. The alternative account is that d-SNAs reflect task demands, such as explicit numerical judgments and/or categorical responses. In the novel ‘Where was The Number?’ task, no explicit numerical judgments were made. Participants were simply required to reproduce the location of a numeral within a rectangular space. Using a between-subject design, we found that numbers, but not letters, biased participants’ responses along the horizontal dimension, such that larger numbers were placed more rightward than smaller numbers, even when participants completed a concurrent verbal working memory task. These findings are consistent with the MNL account, such that numbers specifically are inherently left-to-right oriented in Western participants.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-12
Author(s):  
Joonkoo Park ◽  
Sonia Godbole ◽  
Marty G. Woldorff ◽  
Elizabeth M. Brannon

Abstract Whether and how the brain encodes discrete numerical magnitude differently from continuous nonnumerical magnitude is hotly debated. In a previous set of studies, we orthogonally varied numerical (numerosity) and nonnumerical (size and spacing) dimensions of dot arrays and demonstrated a strong modulation of early visual evoked potentials (VEPs) by numerosity and not by nonnumerical dimensions. Although very little is known about the brain's response to systematic changes in continuous dimensions of a dot array, some authors intuit that the visual processing stream must be more sensitive to continuous magnitude information than to numerosity. To address this possibility, we measured VEPs of participants viewing dot arrays that changed exclusively in one nonnumerical magnitude dimension at a time (size or spacing) while holding numerosity constant and compared this to a condition where numerosity was changed while holding size and spacing constant. We found reliable but small neural sensitivity to exclusive changes in size and spacing; however, changing numerosity elicited a much more robust modulation of the VEPs. Together with previous work, these findings suggest that sensitivity to magnitude dimensions in early visual cortex is context dependent: The brain is moderately sensitive to changes in size and spacing when numerosity is held constant, but sensitivity to these continuous variables diminishes to a negligible level when numerosity is allowed to vary at the same time. Neurophysiological explanations for the encoding and context dependency of numerical and nonnumerical magnitudes are proposed within the framework of neuronal normalization.


PLoS ONE ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. e0151045 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kiran Vanbinst ◽  
Daniel Ansari ◽  
Pol Ghesquière ◽  
Bert De Smedt

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document