Automaticity of Conceptual Magnitude

What is bigger, an elephant or a mouse? This question can be answered without seeing the two animals, since these objects elicit conceptual magnitude. How is an object’s conceptual magnitude processed? It was suggested that conceptual magnitude is automatically processed; namely, irrelevant conceptual magnitude can affect performance when comparing physical magnitudes. The current study further examined this question and aimed to expand the understanding of automaticity of conceptual magnitude. Two different objects were presented and participants were asked to decide which object was larger on the screen (physical magnitude) or in the real world (conceptual magnitude), in separate blocks. By creating congruent (the conceptually larger object was physically larger) and incongruent (the conceptually larger object was physically smaller) pairs of stimuli it was possible to examine the automatic processing of each magnitude. A significant congruity effect was found for both magnitudes. Furthermore, quartile analysis revealed that the congruity was affected similarly by processing time for both magnitudes. These results suggest that the processing of conceptual and physical magnitudes is automatic to the same extent. The results support recent theories suggested that different types of magnitude processing and representation share the same core system.

[1]  Roberto Cubelli,et al.  Spatial coding of object typical size: evidence for a SNARC-like effect , 2014, Psychological Research.

[2]  M. Lee,et al.  Statistical Evidence in Experimental Psychology , 2011, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[3]  H. Jeffreys Small Corrections in the Theory of Surface Waves , 1961 .

[4]  A. Paivio Perceptual comparisons through the mind’s eye , 1975, Memory & cognition.

[5]  Avishai Henik,et al.  Automatic and intentional processing of numerical information , 1992 .

[6]  Avishai Henik,et al.  The Brain Locus of Interaction between Number and Size: A Combined Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Event-related Potential Study , 2007, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[7]  D. Ansari Effects of development and enculturation on number representation in the brain , 2008, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[8]  A. Henik,et al.  UNINTENTIONAL WORD READING VIA THE PHONOLOGICAL ROUTE : THE STROOP EFFECT WITH CROSS-SCRIPT HOMOPHONES , 1996 .

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

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

[11]  Colin M. Macleod Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: an integrative review. , 1991, Psychological bulletin.

[12]  A. Oliva,et al.  A familiar-size Stroop effect: real-world size is an automatic property of object representation. , 2012, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[13]  Jeffrey N. Rouder,et al.  Default Bayes factors for ANOVA designs , 2012 .

[14]  Avishai Henik,et al.  Is an ant larger than a lion? , 2002, Acta psychologica.

[15]  Tali Leibovich,et al.  Quantities, Amounts, and the Numerical Core System , 2012, Front. Hum. Neurosci.

[16]  J. Bargh The ecology of automaticity: toward establishing the conditions needed to produce automatic processing effects. , 1992, The American journal of psychology.

[17]  Anna M. Borghi,et al.  Conceptual information about size of objects in nouns , 2009 .

[18]  R. Moyer Comparing objects in memory: Evidence suggesting an internal psychophysics , 1973 .

[19]  A. Oliva,et al.  A Real-World Size Organization of Object Responses in Occipitotemporal Cortex , 2012, Neuron.

[20]  K. Grill-Spector,et al.  The human visual cortex. , 2004, Annual review of neuroscience.

[21]  Mark P. Holden,et al.  Sex differences in the weighting of metric and categorical information in spatial location memory , 2015, Psychological research.

[22]  E. Lauber,et al.  Conditional and unconditional automaticity: a dual-process model of effects of spatial stimulus-response correspondence. , 1994, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

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

[24]  Tali Leibovich,et al.  The importance of being relevant: modulation of magnitude representations , 2013, Front. Psychol..

[25]  I. Arend,et al.  Time counts: Bidirectional interaction between time and numbers in human adults , 2014, Consciousness and Cognition.

[26]  Elizabeth M. Brannon,et al.  Beyond the number domain , 2009, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[27]  B. Hommel The Quarterly Journal Of Experimental Psychology, 1996 , 49a (3) , 546 571 , 2022 .

[28]  Leslie G. Ungerleider,et al.  Object vision and spatial vision: two cortical pathways , 1983, Trends in Neurosciences.

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

[30]  B. Rossion,et al.  Revisiting Snodgrass and Vanderwart's Object Pictorial Set: The Role of Surface Detail in Basic-Level Object Recognition , 2004, Perception.

[31]  A. Henik,et al.  Unintentional word reading via the phonological route: The Stroop effect with cross-script homophones. , 1996 .