In recent years, in number cognitive domain numerical Stroop paradigm was used to study the relationship of numerical semantic and numerical physical size in number process. In addition to Stroop effect, SNARC effect was also an important index of number automatic processing. Based on existing findings, this study conducted two experiments to explore whether large numbers could be activated automatically. By using Stroop effect as index , the first experiment explored whether the number of numeral and number semantic could produce interference and facilitation; the second experiment explored whether the number(i.e., quantity of asterisks) represented spacially by using SNARC effect as index.
Experiment 1 was divided into two parts. In first part subjects were asked to compare the numerical semantic of standard stimulus with that of comparing stimuli, but to ignore the numbers of numeral. The second part took the reverse procedure. The results indicated that the main effect of task type was not significant, F(1, 19) = .030，p>.01, the main effect of Stroop effect ( between accord and disaccord ) was significant, F(1, 19) = 83.838，p < .001. The results suggested that the response speed of numeral semantic comparison was influenced by the number of numeral. In detail, under accord condition (i.e. smaller numeral matched with less numerals, bigger numeral matched with more numerals), response was quicker, otherwise, response was slower. Stroop effect of numeral semantic comparison was about 15 ms (461ms and 476 ms respectively). In the task of numeral number comparison, the response was influenced by numeral semantic, under accord condition, response was quicker, under disaccord condition, response was slower. Stroop effect of numeral number comparison was about 24 ms (459ms and 483 ms respectively). Average error rate was analyzed by repetitive measure ANOVA. Main effect of task type was significant, F(1, 19) = 1521.000，p=.000，the error rate of numeral semantic comparison was less than that of numeral number comparison (3.7% and 4.9% respectively). Main effects of Stroop effect was significant, F(1, 19) = 12705.575，p= .000, error rate of accord condition was less than that of disaccord condition (2.6% and 6.0% respectively).
All the stimuli of experiment 2 were composed of starlet pictures, all of which covered equal area but the numbers of starlet within them were different. Experiment 2 included two parts, all of wich completed the same task: comparing the starlet numbers of comparison stimuli with that of standard stimulus, but the key-pressing rules were reverse.
Data analyzing indicated that the main effect of number presentation order was very significant, F(1, 20) = 31.421，p <.001，the average response time of from less to more was 478ms，Std=14.9；the average response time of from more to less was 509ms，Std=17.1. SNARC effect was significant, F(1, 20) =9.514，p < .01. Under accord condition, the average response time was 469ms, Std=14.2; under disaccord condition, the average response time was 519ms, Std=20.7. SNARC effect was about 50ms.
Average error rate was analyzed by repetitive measure ANOVA. The main effect of number present order was not significant, F(1, 20) = 2.913，p>.05. SNARC effect was significant, F(1, 20)=5.969，p<.05. Error rate of accord condition was 4.3%，Std=.008，error rate of disaccord condition was 6.1%，Std=.009.
To sum up, experiment 1 found that Stroop effect exists in both numeral number comparison task and number semantic comparison task. Experiment 2 found that there exists SNARC effect in number comparison task. An presentation order effect was also found, that is to say, when the numerals' semantic of standard was smaller than that of comparison simuli, Rts were faster, otherwise Rts were slower.
Key words
large numbers /
automatic processing /
Stroop effect /
SNARC effect
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.content}}
References
胡林成，熊哲宏. (2008). 算术模块的行为与神经机制研究. 心理科学, 31(4), 1002–1004.
刘超，傅小兰.( 2004). 不同注意条件下大数与小数的加工差异. 心理学报, 36(3), 307–314.
Allen H Wolach , Maureen A McHale &Alina Tarlea .(2004). Numerical Stroop effect .Perceptual and Motor Skills, 98（1）：67-77.
Balakrishnan, J.D., & Ashby, F.G. (1992). Subitizing: magical numbers or mere superstition? Psychological Research, 54, 80–90.
Bull R, Scerif G. (2001). Executive Functioning as a Predictor of Children’s Mathematics Ability: Inhibition, Switching, and Working Memory. Developmental Neuropsychology, 19(3): 273–293
Cohen Kadosh R, Henik A, Rubinsten, et al.( 2005). Are numbers special? The comparison systems of the human brain investigated by fMRI. Neuropsychologia, 43: 1238–1248
Dehaene, S., Dupoux, E., & Mehler, J. (1990). Is numerical comparison digital? Analogical and symbolic effects in two-digit number comparison. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 16, 626–641.
Dehaene, S., Molko, N., Cohen, L., & Wilson, A. (2004). Artihmetic and the brain. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 14, 218–224.
Gallistel, C. R., & Gelman, R. (1992). Preverbal and verbal counting and computation. Cognition, 44, 43–74.
Gevers W, Reynvoet B, & Fias W. (2003). The mental representation of ordinal sequences is spatially organized. Cognition, 87: B87–B95.
Gevers W, Reynvoet B, & Fias W. (2004). The mental representation of ordinal sequences is spatially organised: evidence from days of the week. Cortex, 40, 171–172.
Gevers, W., Verguts, T., Reynvoet, B., Caessens, B., & Fias, W. (2006). Numbers and space: A computational model of the SNARC effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, 32–44.
Hock, H. S., & Egeth, H. (1970). Verbal interference with encoding in a perceptual classification task. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 83, 299–303.
Ishihara M, Keller PE, Rossetti Y, & Prinz W. ( 2008). Horizontal spatial representations of time: evidence for the STEARC effect. Cortex, 44, 454–461.
Ito, Y., & Hatta, T. (2004). Spatial structure of quantitative representation of numbers: Evidence from the SNARC effect. Memory & Cognition, 32, 662–673.
Kaufmann, L., Koppelstaetter, F., Siedentopf, C., Haala, I., Haberlandt, E., Zimerhackl, L.-B., et al. (2006). Neural correlates of the number-size interference task in children. Neuroreport, 17, 587–591.
Krajcsi, A., Szabó, E., & Mórocz, I. (2013). Subitizing is sensitive to the arrangement of objects. Experimental Psychology, 60, 227-234.
Pinel, P., Piazza, M., Le Bihan, D., & Dehaene, S. (2004). Distributed and overlapping cerebral representations of number, size, and luminance during comparative judgments. Neuron, 41, 983–993.
Proctor, R. W., & Cho, Y. S. (2006). Polarity correspondence: A general principle for performance of speeded binary classification tasks. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 416–442.
Rubinstein, O., & Henik, A. (2005). Automatic activation of internal magnitudes: A study of developmental dyscalculia. Neuropsychology, 5, 641–648.
Rusconi E, Kwan B, Giordano BL, Umilta C, & Butterworth B. (2006). Spatial representation of pitch height: the SMARC effect. Cognition, 99, 113–129.
Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643–662.
PDF(6379 KB)
