Incongruence in number–luminance congruency effects

Congruency tasks have provided support for an amodal magnitude system for magnitudes that have a “spatial” character, but conflicting results have been obtained for magnitudes that do not (e.g., luminance). In this study, we extricated the factors that underlie these number–luminance congruency effects and tested alternative explanations: (unsigned) luminance contrast and saliency. When luminance had to be compared under specific task conditions, we revealed, for the first time, a true influence of number on luminance judgments: Darker stimuli were consistently associated with numerically larger stimuli. However, when number had to be compared, luminance contrast, not luminance, influenced number judgments. Apparently, associations exist between number and luminance, as well as luminance contrast, of which the latter is probably stronger. Therefore, similar tasks, comprising exactly the same stimuli, can lead to distinct interference effects.

[1]  Philippe Pinel,et al.  Distributed and Overlapping Cerebral Representations of Number, Size, and Luminance during Comparative Judgments , 2004, Neuron.

[2]  Marco Zorzi,et al.  Normal and Impaired Reflexive Orienting of Attention after Central Nonpredictive Cues , 2009, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[3]  F. Durgin.  Texture contrast aftereffects are monocular; texture density aftereffects are binocular , 2001, Vision Research.

[4]  S. Dehaene,et al.  THREE PARIETAL CIRCUITS FOR NUMBER PROCESSING , 2003, Cognitive neuropsychology.

[5]  Avishai Henik,et al.  Automatic quantity processing in 5-year olds and adults , 2008, Cognitive Processing.

[6]  Wim Fias,et al.  Verbal-spatial and visuospatial coding of number-space interactions. , 2010, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[7]  D. Algom,et al.  The perception of number from the separability of the stimulus: The Stroop effect revisited , 1996, Memory & cognition.

[8]  Avishai Henik,et al.  Are numbers special? The comparison systems of the human brain investigated by fMRI , 2005, Neuropsychologia.

[9]  Michael D. Dodd,et al.  Perceiving numbers causes spatial shifts of attention , 2003, Nature Neuroscience.

[10]  G. Orban,et al.  Parietal Representation of Symbolic and Nonsymbolic Magnitude , 2003, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[11]  Peter Brugger,et al.  Stimulus-response compatibility in representational space , 1998, Neuropsychologia.

[12]  W. Gevers,et al.  The SNARC effect does not imply a mental number line , 2008, Cognition.

[13]  Wim Fias,et al.  Automatic response activation of implicit spatial information: Evidence from the SNARC effect. , 2006, Acta psychologica.

[14]  Titia Gebuis,et al.  Conflict processing of symbolic and non-symbolic numerosity , 2010, Neuropsychologia.

[15]  Bruno L. Giordano,et al.  Spatial representation of pitch height: the SMARC effect , 2006, Cognition.

[16]  Sheng He,et al.  Larger stimuli are judged to last longer. , 2007, Journal of vision.

[17]  Vincent Walsh.  A theory of magnitude: common cortical metrics of time, space and quantity , 2003, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[18]  Avishai Henik,et al.  When brightness counts: the neuronal correlate of numerical-luminance interference. , 2008, Cerebral cortex.

[19]  S. Dehaene,et al.  The mental representation of parity and number magnitude. , 1993 .

[20]  A. Osman,et al.  Dimensional overlap: cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility--a model and taxonomy. , 1990, Psychological review.

[21]  A. Henik,et al.  Is three greater than five: The relation between physical and semantic size in comparison tasks , 1982, Memory & cognition.

[22]  Roi Cohen Kadosh,et al.  Are numbers special? An overview of chronometric, neuroimaging, developmental and comparative studies of magnitude representation , 2008, Progress in Neurobiology.

[23]  Inkeri K. Herfs,et al.  The development of automated access to symbolic and non‐symbolic number knowledge in children: an ERP study , 2009, The European journal of neuroscience.

[24]  Xinlin Zhou,et al.  Chinese kindergartners’ automatic processing of numerical magnitude in Stroop-like tasks , 2007, Memory & cognition.

[25]  M. Masson,et al.  Using confidence intervals in within-subject designs , 1994, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[26]  Melissa E. Libertus,et al.  Electrophysiological evidence for notation independence in numerical processing , 2007, Behavioral and Brain Functions.

[27]  Daniel Algom,et al.  Comparative judgment of numerosity and numerical magnitude: attention preempts automaticity. , 2002, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[28]  S. Dehaene,et al.  A Magnitude Code Common to Numerosities and Number Symbols in Human Intraparietal Cortex , 2007, Neuron.

[29]  R. Cohen Kadosh,et al.  Numerical representation in the parietal lobes: abstract or not abstract? , 2009, The Behavioral and brain sciences.

[30]  Avishai Henik,et al.  A common representation for semantic and physical properties: a cognitive-anatomical approach. , 2006, Experimental psychology.

[31]  Avishai Henik,et al.  Notation-Dependent and -Independent Representations of Numbers in the Parietal Lobes , 2007, Neuron.

[32]  S. Dehaene.  Varieties of numerical abilities , 1992, Cognition.