Interference Between Accustomed Number–Space Mappings and Unacquainted Letter–Space Mappings in a Button Press Task

Objective: We aimed to investigate how ordered mappings (e.g., left-to-right and right-to-left order representations) would interfere with each other. Background: Mental representations of numbers and letters are linked with spatial representation and can be changed intentionally. Method: The experiment consisted of three sessions. In the digit-alone session, two digits randomly selected from [1], [2], and [3] were shown. If the two digits were the same, participants pressed the button corresponding to the digit, and if the digits differed, they pressed the remaining button. The response buttons were ordered [1][2][3] from the left. In the letter-alone session, three different button configurations were prepared: sequential [A][B][C], reversed [C][B][A], or partially reversed [B][A][C]. The same-versus-different rules were basically identical to those in the digit task. In the mixed session, trials of the digit task and those of the letter task were randomly mixed. Results: We found that two ordinal representations did not interfere with each other when they shared the same direction of order ([1][2][3] vs. [A][B][C]), two ordinal mappings interfered with each other when they had different directions of order ([1][2][3] vs. [C][B][A]), and an ordinal mapping ([1][2][3]) was affected by a nonordinal mapping ([B][A][C]), but the nonordinal mapping was less affected by the ordinal mapping. Conclusion: The mapping between ordinal information and space can be modulated by top-down processes, and it is prone to interference depending on the nature of another coexisting mapping. Application: Our findings may be used in designing response assignments for input devices for multiple functions.

[1]  S. Dehaene,et al.  Interactions between number and space in parietal cortex , 2005, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[2]  Jamie I. D. Campbell Handbook of mathematical cognition , 2004 .

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

[4]  Motonori Yamaguchi,et al.  Stimulus-response compatibility with pure and mixed mappings in a flight task environment. , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

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

[6]  R. Proctor,et al.  Mixing compatible and incompatible mappings: Elimination, reduction, and enhancement of spatial compatibility effects , 2004, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[7]  Wim Fias,et al.  The mental representation of ordinal sequences is spatially organized , 2003, Cognition.

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

[9]  Andrea M Philipp,et al.  Control and interference in task switching--a review. , 2010, Psychological bulletin.

[10]  Wim Fias,et al.  Spatial representation of numbers. , 2004 .

[11]  Giovanni Galfano,et al.  Number magnitude orients attention, but not against one’s will , 2006, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[12]  D. Meyer,et al.  Executive control of cognitive processes in task switching. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[13]  S. Monsell,et al.  Costs of a predictible switch between simple cognitive tasks. , 1995 .

[14]  D. A. Grant,et al.  Learning and performance on a key-pressing task as function of the degree of spatial stimulus-response correspondence. , 1955, Journal of experimental psychology.

[15]  Claudia Bauzer Medeiros,et al.  A Direct Manipulation User Interface for Querying Geographic Databases , 1995 .

[16]  R. Proctor,et al.  Determinants of the benefit for consistent spatial mappings in dual-task performance of three-choice tasks , 2009, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[17]  W. Glaser,et al.  Context effects in stroop-like word and picture processing. , 1989, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[18]  R. Proctor,et al.  Age differences in response selection for pure and mixed stimulus-response mappings and tasks. , 2008, Acta psychologica.

[19]  R. Kliegl,et al.  Task-set switching and long-term memory retrieval. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[20]  Robert W Proctor,et al.  Determinants of the benefit for consistent stimulus-response mappings in dual-task performance of four-choice tasks , 2009, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[21]  D. Woltz,et al.  Negative transfer errors in sequential cognitive skills: strong-but-wrong sequence application. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[22]  J. Ridley Studies of Interference in Serial Verbal Reactions , 2001 .

[23]  Sean P. Gyll,et al.  The role of attention processes in near transfer of cognitive skills , 2000 .

[24]  H. Bekkering,et al.  Short Article: Coding Strategies in Number Space: Memory Requirements Influence Spatial–Numerical Associations , 2008, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[25]  Michael K. Gardner,et al.  Individual differences in undetected errors in skilled cognitive performance , 1997 .

[26]  R. D. Gordon,et al.  Executive control of visual attention in dual-task situations. , 2001, Psychological review.

[27]  S. Greenberg,et al.  The Psychology of Everyday Things , 2012 .

[28]  Cleotilde Gonzalez,et al.  Dissociation of S-R compatibility and Simon effects with mixed tasks and mappings. , 2013, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[29]  Patrik Vuilleumier,et al.  The Number Space and Neglect , 2004, Cortex.

[30]  R. Kliegl,et al.  Differential effects of cue changes and task changes on task-set selection costs. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[31]  D G Pelli,et al.  The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: transforming numbers into movies. , 1997, Spatial vision.

[32]  Ritske de Jong,et al.  Strategical determinants of compatibility effects with task uncertainty , 1995 .

[33]  F. Verbruggen,et al.  Increasing the difficulty of response selection does not increase the switch cost. , 2009, Canadian journal of experimental psychology = Revue canadienne de psychologie experimentale.

[34]  Christopher Hamblin,et al.  Design of a Cursor Control Device for the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle , 2008 .

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

[36]  M. H. Fischer,et al.  The Future for Snarc Could Be Stark… , 2006, Cortex.

[37]  R. Proctor,et al.  Influence of bias on visuospatial and verbal compatibility effects in mixed-mapping environments , 2011, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[38]  R. L. Deininger,et al.  S-R compatibility: correspondence among paired elements within stimulus and response codes. , 1954, Journal of experimental psychology.

[39]  Shaffer Lh CHOICE REACTION WITH VARIABLE S-R MAPPING. , 1965 .

[40]  J. Danckert Common Mechanisms in Perception and Action: Attention and Performance XIX Wolfgang Prinz, Bernhard Hommel (Eds.), Oxford University Press, 2002, Price: £ 65.00, ISBN: 0-19-851069 , 2003, Neuropsychologia.

[41]  D. Alan Allport,et al.  SHIFTING INTENTIONAL SET - EXPLORING THE DYNAMIC CONTROL OF TASKS , 1994 .

[42]  D H Brainard,et al.  The Psychophysics Toolbox. , 1997, Spatial vision.

[43]  L. Shaffer CHOICE REACTION WITH VARIABLE S-R MAPPING. , 1965, Journal of experimental psychology.

[44]  R. Proctor,et al.  Stimulus-Response Compatibility Principles: Data, Theory, and Application , 2006 .

[45]  Spatial S-R compatibility: positional instruction vs. compatibility instruction. , 1994, Acta psychologica.

[46]  W Fias,et al.  Irrelevant digits affect feature-based attention depending on the overlap of neural circuits. , 2001, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[47]  Takeshi Hatta,et al.  Spatial structure of quantitative representation of numbers: Evidence from the SNARC effect , 2004, Memory & cognition.

[48]  A. Kingstone,et al.  The number line effect reflects top-down control , 2006, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[49]  J. R. Simon The Effects of an Irrelevant Directional CUE on Human Information Processing , 1990 .

[50]  John E. Laird,et al.  Stimulus-Response Compatibility , 1986 .

[51]  R. Proctor,et al.  The influence of irrelevant location information on performance: A review of the Simon and spatial Stroop effects , 1995, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[52]  Samar Zebian,et al.  Linkages between Number Concepts, Spatial Thinking, and Directionality of Writing: The SNARC Effect and the REVERSE SNARC Effect in English and Arabic Monoliterates, Biliterates, and Illiterate Arabic Speakers , 2005 .

[53]  Robert W. Proctor,et al.  Stimulus-Response Compatibility: An Integrated Perspective , 1990 .

[54]  Dana Ganor-Stern,et al.  Automaticity of two-digit numbers. , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[55]  Wayne D. Gray,et al.  An integrated model of cognitive control in task switching. , 2008, Psychological review.

[56]  Patrick C. Kyllonen,et al.  Memory for order of operations in the acquisition and transfer of sequential cognitive skills. , 1996 .