The Magnitude Effect on Tactile Spatial Representation: The Spatial–Tactile Association for Response Code (STARC) Effect

The human brain uses perceptual information to create a correct representation of the external world. Converging data indicate that the perceptual processing of, space, and quantities frequently is based on a shared mental magnitude system, where low and high quantities are represented in the left and right space, respectively. The present study explores how the magnitude affects spatial representation in the tactile modality. We investigated these processes using stimulus-response (S-R) compatibility tasks (i.e., sensorimotor tasks that present an association/dissociation between the perception of a stimulus and the required action, generally increasing/decreasing accuracy and decreasing/increasing reaction times of the subject). In our study, the participant performed a discrimination task between high- and low-frequency vibrotactile stimuli, regardless of the stimulation’s spatial position. When the response code was incompatible with the mental magnitude line (i.e., left button for high-frequency and right button for low-frequency responses), we found that the participants bypassed the spatial congruence, showing a magnitude S-R compatibility effect. We called this phenomenon the Spatial–Tactile Association of Response Codes (STARC) effect. Moreover, we observed that the internal frame of reference embodies the STARC effect. Indeed, the participants’ performance reversed between uncrossed- and crossed-hands posture, suggesting that spatial reference frames play a role in the process of expressing mental magnitude, at least in terms of the tactile modality.

[1]  Monica Gori,et al.  Attention to sound improves auditory reliability in audio-tactile spatial optimal integration , 2015, Front. Integr. Neurosci..

[2]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

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

[4]  Baptist Liefooghe,et al.  Automatic effects of instructions do not require the intention to execute these instructions , 2018 .

[5]  Monica Gori,et al.  MSI Caterpillar: An Effective Multisensory System to Evaluate Spatial Body Representation , 2019, 2019 IEEE International Symposium on Medical Measurements and Applications (MeMeA).

[6]  P. Wühr,et al.  Compatibility between Physical Stimulus Size and Left-right Responses: Small is Left and Large is Right , 2018, Journal of cognition.

[7]  Salvador Soto-Faraco,et al.  Modality-Switching in the Simon Task: The Clash of Reference Frames , 2017, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[8]  André Vandierendonck,et al.  A comparison of methods to combine speed and accuracy measures of performance: A rejoinder on the binning procedure , 2016, Behavior Research Methods.

[9]  T. Loetscher,et al.  Mapping of non-numerical domains on space: a systematic review and meta-analysis , 2017, Experimental Brain Research.

[10]  S. Dehaene,et al.  Is numerical comparison digital? Analogical and symbolic effects in two-digit number comparison. , 1990, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[11]  Steven G. Luke,et al.  Evaluating significance in linear mixed-effects models in R , 2016, Behavior Research Methods.

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

[13]  Daniel Casasanto,et al.  The Faulty Magnitude Detector: Why SNARC-Like Tasks Cannot Support a Generalized Magnitude System , 2019, Cogn. Sci..

[14]  A. Hedge,et al.  The effect of irrelevant spatial correspondences on two-choice response-time. , 1975, Acta psychologica.

[15]  Andrew Simpson,et al.  Subitizing in Tactile Perception , 2006, Psychological science.

[16]  Harold Bekkering,et al.  A Feeling for Numbers: Shared Metric for Symbolic and Tactile Numerosities , 2013, Front. Psychology.

[17]  R. Proctor,et al.  Mixing incompatibly mapped location-relevant trials with location-irrelevant trials: effects of stimulus mode on the reverse Simon effect , 2000, Psychological research.

[18]  E. Ross The Organization of Will , 1916, American Journal of Sociology.

[19]  C. Spence,et al.  Developmental vision determines the reference frame for the multisensory control of action , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[20]  Astrid M L Kappers,et al.  One, two, three, many - subitizing in active touch. , 2009, Acta psychologica.

[21]  Wim Fias,et al.  Towards a common processing architecture underlying Simon and SNARC effects , 2005 .

[22]  Klaus Willmes,et al.  Notational Modulation of the SNARC and the MARC (Linguistic Markedness of Response Codes) Effect , 2004, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[23]  Matthew J. Davis Contrast Coding in Multiple Regression Analysis: Strengths, Weaknesses, and Utility of Popular Coding Structures , 2021, Journal of Data Science.

[24]  Franco Lepore,et al.  How visual experience impacts the internal and external spatial mapping of sensorimotor functions , 2017, Scientific Reports.

[25]  M. Zorzi,et al.  The role of long-term-memory and short-term-memory links in the Simon effect. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[26]  M. McCloskey,et al.  Somatotopic representation of location: evidence from the Simon effect. , 2014, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[27]  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.

[28]  Masami Ishihara,et al.  Touch perception reveals the dominance of spatial over digital representation of numbers , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[29]  Monica Gori,et al.  Tactile feedback improves auditory spatial localization , 2014, Front. Psychol..

[30]  André Vandierendonck,et al.  Further Tests of the Utility of Integrated Speed-Accuracy Measures in Task Switching , 2018, Journal of cognition.

[31]  Wim Fias,et al.  Shared spatial representations for numbers and space: the reversal of the SNARC and the Simon effects. , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[32]  J R Simon,et al.  Processing auditory information: interference from an irrelevant cue. , 1969, The Journal of applied psychology.

[33]  Masami Ishihara,et al.  Horizontal spatial representations of time: Evidence for the STEARC effect , 2008, Cortex.

[34]  Thomas Lachmann,et al.  Attention allows the SNARC effect to operate on multiple number lines , 2018, Scientific Reports.

[35]  Narisuke Utsuki,et al.  From SNARC to SQUARC: Universal Mental Quantity Line? , 2012 .

[36]  R. Ward,et al.  S-R correspondence effects of irrelevant visual affordance: Time course and specificity of response activation , 2002 .

[37]  Simone Giacosa,et al.  Ozone Improves the Aromatic Fingerprint of White Grapes , 2017, Scientific Reports.

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

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

[40]  J. Smeets,et al.  Haptic subitizing across the fingers , 2011, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[41]  Daniela Mapelli,et al.  The SNARC effect: an instance of the Simon effect? , 2003, Cognition.

[42]  Denis G. Pelli,et al.  ECVP '07 Abstracts , 2007, Perception.

[43]  Per B. Brockhoff,et al.  lmerTest Package: Tests in Linear Mixed Effects Models , 2017 .

[44]  Yang Seok Cho,et al.  Polarity correspondence: A general principle for performance of speeded binary classification tasks. , 2006, Psychological bulletin.

[45]  R. Wallace,et al.  S-R compatibility and the idea of a response code. , 1971, Journal of experimental psychology.

[46]  Michael E. R. Nicholls,et al.  Size Matters: Non-Numerical Magnitude Affects the Spatial Coding of Response , 2011, PloS one.

[47]  J. Lammertyn,et al.  The hunt for SNARC , 2005 .

[48]  R W Proctor,et al.  Auditory stimulus-response compatibility: Is there a contribution of stimulus-hand correspondence? , 2000, Psychological research.

[49]  Effects of laterality and pitch height of an auditory accessory stimulus on horizontal response selection: The Simon effect and the SMARC effect , 2009, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[50]  Stanislas Dehaene,et al.  The Organization of Spatial Reference Frames Involved in the Snarc Effect , 2014, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[51]  C. E. Rogers,et al.  Symbolic Description of Factorial Models for Analysis of Variance , 1973 .

[52]  R. Proctor,et al.  Processing irrelevant location information: Practice and transfer effects in choice-reaction tasks , 1999, Memory & cognition.

[53]  V. Walsh,et al.  The parietal cortex and the representation of time, space, number and other magnitudes , 2009, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[54]  C. Gallistel,et al.  Non-verbal numerical cognition: from reals to integers , 2000, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[55]  C. Leth-Steensen,et al.  Spatial reference frames and SNARC , 2017 .

[56]  R. Verleger,et al.  Validity and boundary conditions of automatic response activation in the Simon task. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.