DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2017.00995

Acta Psychologica Sinica (心理学报) 2017/49:8 PP.995-1008

The effect of positive and negative signs on the SNARC effect in the magnitude judgment task

Based on previous investigations, positive and negative sign is an important factor of SNARC (Spatial-Numerical Association of Response Codes) effect. Magnitude judgments of different signed numbers are solved by an obvious sign shortcut mechanism. When both numbers are negative, there are arguments between ontogenetic hypothesis and phylogenetic hypothesis. The ontogenetic hypothesis supposes that negative numbers are mapped onto the mental number line according to their numerical value, but phylogenetic hypothesis inserts that the representation of negative numbers depends on their absolute numerical value. Whether the SNARC effect is processed in the stage of response selection or stimulus presentation is also under discussion. Although frontal lobe and parietal lobe are generally considered as the key brain regions of the SNARC effect, hemispheric dominance of this effect still needs exploration. Therefore, our research focused on four points:1) how sign shortcut mechanism affected the SNARC effect, 2) how negative numbers represented on the mental number line, 3) how the signs of numbers affected the processing stage of the SNARC effect, 4) the key brain regions and hemispheric dominance of the SNARC effect.
In the current experiment, we used modified "magnitude judgments" paradigm with ERPs recorded, to investigate how positive and negative signs influence the SNARC effect. Participants were informed the base number and the response mode before the task, then they were instructed to compare the sizes of the target numbers (-9~+9, excluded -5, 0 and +5) and the base number (-5 or +5). Two manners of keying were adopted, including congruent keying and incongruent keying. Congruent keying required participants to make "smaller" responses with the key "F" (left) and make "larger" responses with the key "J" (right). Conversely, incongruent keying required participants to make "smaller" response with the key "J" (right) and make "larger" response with the key "F" (left). Accordingly, the SNARC effect refers to the situation where the reaction times of congruent keying were shorter than those of incongruent keying.
Behaviorally, different sign comparisons had higher accuracy rates than same sign comparisons. Besides, when the base number was +5, accuracy rates were higher than the condition where the base number was -5. For reaction times, responses to different sign comparisons were faster than responses to the same sign comparisons. Compared to -5, reaction time was shorter when the base number was +5. Congruent keying reacted faster than incongruent keying. In the same sign comparisons, if the base number was +5, congruent keying was faster than incongruent keying. But if the base number was -5, there was no difference between two keying types. ERP results showed that congruent keying elicited more positive P3 in response selection stage, no matter in different or same sign comparisons, which represented the SNARC effect. When base and target numbers were different signed numbers, the sign shortcut mechanism affected SNARC differently. Specificlly, when the target numbers were negative, congruent keying produced smaller N300 than incongruent keying in the stimulus presentation stage. However, when the target numbers were positive, congruent keying produced more positive LPP in the response execution stage. Traceability analysis showed that SNARC effect activated frontal lobe and parietal lobe. The negative numbers were processed with the activation of left frontal regions but positive numbers were processed with the activation of right frontal regions.
Our findings suggest that:the spatial representation of negative numbers supports ontogenetic hypothesis. Positive signs and negative signs can modulate the processing stage of the SNARC effect. The spatial representation of positive and negative numbers depends on different dominant hemisphere.

Key words:SNARC effect,sign shortcut mechanism,negative number representation,mental number line,ERP

ReleaseDate:2017-08-31 10:09:54

Cattaneo, Z., Silvanto, J., Pascual-Leone, A., & Battelli, L. (2009). The role of the angular gyrus in the modulation of visuospatial attention by the mental number line. NeuroImage, 44, 563-568.

Cohen, L., & Dehaene, S. (1996). Cerebral networks for number processing:Evidence from a case of posterior callosal lesion. Neurocase, 2, 155-174.

Conroy, M. A., & Polich, J. (2007). Affective valence and P300 when stimulus arousal level is controlled. Cognition & Emotion, 21, 891-901.

Cutini, S., Scarpa, F., Scatturin, P., Dell'Acqua, R., & Zorzi, M. (2014). Number-space interactions in the human parietal cortex:Enlightening the SNARC effect with functional near-infrared spectroscopy. Cerebral Cortex, 24, 444-451.

Daar, M., & Pratt, J. (2008). Digits affect actions:The SNARC effect and response selection. Cortex, 44, 400-405.

Dehaene, S., Bossini, S., & Giraux, P. (1993). The mental representation of parity and number magnitude. Journal of Experimental Psychology:General, 122, 371-396.

Dehaene, S., & Cohen, L. (1997). Cerebral pathways for calculation:Double dissociation between rote verbal and quantitative knowledge of arithmetic. Cortex, 33, 219-250.

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.

Dodd, M. D. (2011). Negative numbers eliminate, but do not reverse, the attentional SNARC effect. Psychological Research, 75, 2-9.

Dormal, V., Dormal, G., Joassin, F., & Pesenti, M. (2012). A common right fronto-parietal network for numerosity and duration processing:An fMRI study. Human Brain Mapping, 33, 1490-1501.

Feigenson, L., Dehaene, S., & Spelke, E. (2004). Core systems of number. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 307-314.

Fernández, S. R., Rahona, J. J., Hervás, G., Vázquez, C., & Ulrich, R. (2011). Number magnitude determines gaze direction:Spatial-numerical association in a free-choice task. Cortex, 47, 617-620.

Fischer, M. H. (2003). Cognitive representation of negative numbers. Psychological Science, 14, 278-282.

Fischer, M. H., & Rottmann, J. (2005). Do negative numbers have a place on the mental number line? Psychology Science, 47, 22-32.

Ganor-Stern, D., & Tzelgov, J. (2008). Negative numbers are generated in the mind. Experimental Psychology, 55, 157-163.

Gao, Z. F., Shui, R. D., Chen, J., Chen, W., Tian, Y., & Shen, M. W. (2009). The mechanism of negative numbers' spatial representation. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 41, 95-102.

[高在峰, 水仁德, 陈晶, 陈雯, 田瑛, 沈模卫. (2009). 负数的空间表征机制. 心理学报, 41, 95-102.]

Gevers, W., Ratinckx, E., De Baene, W., & Fias, W. (2006). Further evidence that the SNARC effect is processed along a dual-route architecture:Evidence from the lateralized readiness potential. Experimental Psychology, 53, 58-68.

Gibson, L. C., & Maurer, D. (2016). Development of SNARC and distance effects and their relation to mathematical and visuospatial abilities. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 150, 301-313.

Göbel, S. M., Shaki, S., & Fischer, M. H. (2011). The cultural number line:A review of cultural and linguistic influences on the development of number processing. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42, 543-565.

Goffaux, V., Martin, R., Dormal, G., Goebel, R., & Schiltz, C. (2012). Attentional shifts induced by uninformative number symbols modulate neural activity in human occipital cortex. Neuropsychologia, 50, 3419-3428.

Guo, C. Y., Duan, L., Li, W., & Paller, K. A. (2006). Distinguishing source memory and item memory:Brain potentials at encoding and retrieval. Brain Research, 1118, 142-154.

Guo, C., Lawson, A. L., & Jiang, Y. (2007). Distinct neural mechanisms for repetition effects of visual objects. Neuroscience, 149, 747-759.

Gut, M., Szumska, I., Wasilewska, M., & Jaśkowski, P. (2012). Are low and high number magnitudes processed differently while resolving the conflict evoked by the SNARC effect? International Journal of Psychophysiology, 85, 7-16.

Hoffmann, D., Hornung, C., Martin, R., & Schiltz, C. (2013). Developing number-space associations:SNARC effects using a color discrimination task in 5-year-olds. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 116, 775-791.

Hartmann, M., Grabherr, L., & Mast, F. W. (2012). Moving along the mental number line:Interactions between whole-body motion and numerical cognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Human Perception and Performance, 38, 1416-1427.

Hartmann, M., & Mast, F. W. (2017). Loudness counts:Interactions between loudness, number magnitude, and space. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70, 1305-1322.

Jonas, C. N., Taylor, A. J. G., Hutton, S., Weiss, P. H., & Ward, J. (2011). Visuo-spatial representations of the alphabet in synaesthetes and non-synaesthetes. Journal of Neuropsychology, 5, 302-322.

Kadosh, R. C., Kadosh, K. C., Henik, A., & Linden, D. E. J. (2008). Processing conflicting information:Facilitation, interference, and functional connectivity. Neuropsychologia, 46, 2872-2879.

Keus, I. M., Jenks, K. M., & Schwarz, W. (2005). Psychophysiological evidence that the SNARC effect has its functional locus in a response selection stage. Brain Research Cognitive Brain Research, 24, 48-56.

Kong, F., Zhao, J. J., You, X. Q., & Zhang, Y. (2012). The attentional SNARC effect caused by low-level processing of negative numbers in auditory modality. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 10, 12-17.

[孔风, 赵晶晶, 游旭群, 张宇. (2012). 听觉通道下负数的低水平加工引起注意的SNARC效应. 心理与行为研究, 10, 12-17.]

Krajcsi, A., & Igács, J. (2010). Processing negative numbers by transforming negatives to positive range and by sign shortcut. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 22, 1021-1038.

Lv, Y., Liang, J. Q., & Guo, C. Y., (2015). The influence of semantic integration between Items on associative recognition:Evidence from ERPs study. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 47, 427-438.

[律原, 梁九清, 郭春彦. (2015). 项目间语义可整合性对联结再认的影响——来自ERPs研究证据. 心理学报, 47, 427-438.]

McCarthy, G., & Wood, C. C. (1985). Scalp distributions of event-related potentials:An ambiguity associated with analysis of variance models. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology/Evoked Potentials Section, 62, 203-208.

Mills, K. J., Rousseau, B. R., & Gonzalez, C. L. R. (2014). A cross-sectional developmental examination of the SNARC effect in a visually-guided grasping task. Neuropsychologia, 58, 99-106.

Neuhaus, A. H., Urbanek, C., Opgen-Rhein, C., Hahn, E., Ta, T. M. T., Koehler, S., … Dettling, M. (2010). Event-related potentials associated with attention network test. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 76, 72-79.

Nuerk, H. C., Iversen, W., & Willmes, K. (2004). Notational modulation of the SNARC and the MARC (linguistic markedness of response codes) effect. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 57, 835-863.

Pascual-Marqui, R. D. (2002). Standardized low-resolution brain electromagnetic tomography (sLORETA):Technical details. Methods and Findings in Experimental and Clinical Pharmacology, 24 Suppl D, 5-12.

Pia, L., Corazzini, L. L., Folegatti, A., Gindri, P., & Cauda, F. (2009). Mental number line disruption in a right-neglect patient after a left-hemisphere stroke. Brain and Cognition, 69, 81-88.

Polich, J. (2003). Theoretical overview of P3a and P3b. In Polich J (Ed.), Detection of change (pp. 83-98). New York, U.S.:Springer.

Ranzini, M., Lisi, M., & Zorzi, M. (2016). Voluntary eye movements direct attention on the mental number space. Psychological Research, 138, 389-398.

Riello, M., & Rusconi, E. (2011). Unimanual SNARC effect:Hand matters. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 372.

Rusconi, E., Bueti, D., Walsh, V., & Butterworth, B. (2011). Contribution of frontal cortex to the spatial representation of number. Cortex, 47, 2-13.

Sabatinelli, D., Lang, P. J., Keil, A., & Bradley, M. M. (2007). Emotional perception:Correlation of functional MRI and event-related potentials. Cerebral Cortex, 17, 1085-1091.

Schuller, A. M., Hoffmann, D., Goffaux, V., & Schiltz, C. (2014). Shifts of spatial attention cued by irrelevant numbers:Electrophysiological evidence from a target discrimination task. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 27, 442-458.

Semlitsch, H. V., Anderer, P., Schuster, P., & Presslich, O. (1986). A solution for reliable and valid reduction of ocular artifacts, applied to the P300 ERP. Psychophysiology, 23, 695-703.

Shaki, S., & Fischer, M. H. (2014). Random walks on the mental number line. Experimental Brain Research, 232, 43-49.

Shaki, S., & Petrusic, W. M. (2005). On the mental representation of negative numbers:Context-dependent SNARC effects with comparative judgments. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 931-937.

Shaki, S., Petrusic, W. M., & Leth-Steensen, C. (2012). SNARC effects with numerical and non-numerical symbolic comparative judgments:Instructional and cultural dependencies. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Human Perception and Performance, 38, 515-530.

Tlauka, M. (2002). The processing of numbers in choice-reaction tasks. Australian Journal of Psychology, 54, 94-98.

Tudusciuc, O., & Nieder, A. (2007). Neuronal population coding of continuous and discrete quantity in the primate posterior parietal cortex. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104, 14513-14518.

van Dijck, J. P., & Fias, W. (2011). A working memory account for spatial-numerical associations. Cognition, 119, 114-119.

Verleger, R., Jaśkowski, P., & Wascher, E. (2005). Evidence for an integrative role of P3b in linking reaction to perception. Journal of Psychophysiology, 19, 165-181.

Yang, T., Chen, C. S., Zhou, X. L., Xu, J. H., Dong, Q., & Chen, C. H. (2014). Development of spatial representation of numbers:A study of the SNARC effect in Chinese children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 117, 1-11.