The numerical distance effect is task dependent

Number comparison tasks produce a distance effect e.g., Moyer & Landauer (Nature 215: 1519-1520, 1967). It has been suggested that this effect supports the existence of semantic mental representations of numbers. In a matching task, a distance effect also appears, which suggests that the effect has an automatic semantic component. Recently, Cohen (Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 16: 332-336, 2009) suggested that in both automatic and intentional tasks, the distance effect might reflect not a semantic number representation, but a physical similarity between digits. The present article (1) compares the distance effect in the automatic matching task with that in the intentional number comparison task and suggests that, in the latter, the distance effect does include an additional semantic component; and (2) indicates that the distance effect in the standard automatic matching task is questionable and that its appearance in previous matching tasks was based on the specific analysis and design that were applied.

[1]  C. Koch Strategies and Models of Selective Attention , 2010 .

[2]  F H Durgin,et al.  The reverse Stroop effect , 2000, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

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

[4]  D Pritchatt,et al.  An Investigation into Some of the Underlying Associative Verbal Processes of the Stroop Colour Effect , 1968, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[5]  C Leth-Steensen,et al.  A model of response time effects in symbolic comparison. , 2000, Psychological review.

[6]  A. Kleinschmidt,et al.  A Supramodal Number Representation in Human Intraparietal Cortex , 2003, Neuron.

[7]  Stanislas Dehaene,et al.  Development of Elementary Numerical Abilities: A Neuronal Model , 1993, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[8]  E. M. Duncan,et al.  Isolating the effects of symbolic distance, and semantic congruity in comparative judgments: An additive-factors analysis , 1980, Memory & cognition.

[9]  R. Desimone,et al.  Crowding: Including illusory conjunctions, surround suppression, and attention. , 2007, Journal of vision.

[10]  L. Hasher,et al.  Automatic and effortful processes in memory. , 1979 .

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

[12]  G. Logan,et al.  Magnitude versus parity in numerical judgements: event-related brain potentials implicate response conflict as the source of interference. , 1996, Acta psychologica.

[13]  Dana Ganor-Stern,et al.  Across-notation automatic numerical processing. , 2008, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[14]  S Dehaene,et al.  Attention, automaticity, and levels of representation in number processing. , 1995, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[15]  J Tzelgov,et al.  Specifying the relations between automaticity and consciousness: a theoretical note. , 1997, Consciousness and cognition.

[16]  A. Henik,et al.  When 9 is not on the right: Implications from number-form synesthesia , 2009, Consciousness and Cognition.

[17]  Dale J Cohen,et al.  Integers do not automatically activate their quantity representation , 2009, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[18]  Tom Verguts,et al.  Dissociation of the distance effect and size effect in one-digit numbers , 2005, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

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

[20]  ROBERT S. MOYER,et al.  Time required for Judgements of Numerical Inequality , 1967, Nature.

[21]  Chun R. Luo,et al.  Semantic Competition as The Basis of Stroop Interference: Evidence From Color-Word Matching Tasks , 1999 .

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

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

[24]  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.

[25]  J. E. McDonald,et al.  Time course of inhibition in color-response and word-response versions of the Stroop task. , 1994, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[26]  J. Stroop Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. , 1992 .

[27]  A. Roelofs,et al.  Goal-referenced selection of verbal action: modeling attentional control in the Stroop task. , 2003, Psychological review.

[28]  M. Posner Chronometric explorations of mind , 1978 .

[29]  H. Egeth,et al.  Toward a translational model of Stroop interference , 1985, Memory & cognition.

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

[31]  A. Treisman,et al.  The Stroop Test: Selective Attention to Colours and Words , 1969, Nature.

[32]  James L. McClelland,et al.  On the control of automatic processes: a parallel distributed processing account of the Stroop effect. , 1990, Psychological review.

[33]  William P. Banks,et al.  Encoding and Processing of Symbolic Information in Comparative Judgments1 , 1977 .

[34]  A memory-based account of automatic numerosity processing , 2005, Memory & cognition.

[35]  G. Logan Attention and preattention in theories of automaticity. , 1992, The American journal of psychology.