The universal SNARC effect: the association between number magnitude and space is amodal.

It is thought that number magnitude is represented in an abstract and amodal way on a left-to-right oriented mental number line. Major evidence for this idea has been provided by the SNARC effect (Dehaene, Bossini, & Giraux, 1993): responses to relatively larger numbers are faster for the right hand, those to smaller numbers for the left hand, even when number magnitude is irrelevant. The SNARC effect has been used to index automatic access to a central semantic and amodal magnitude representation. However, this assumption of modality independence has never been tested and it remains uncertain if the SNARC effect exists in other modalities in a similar way as in the visual modality. We have examined this question by systematically varying modality/notation (auditory number word, visual Arabic numeral, visual number word, visual dice pattern) in a within-participant design. The SNARC effect was found consistently for all modality/notation conditions, including auditory presentation. The size of the SNARC effect in the auditory condition did not differ from the SNARC effect in any visual condition. We conclude that the SNARC effect is indeed a general index of a central semantic and amodal number magnitude representation.

[1]  J. R. Simon,et al.  Reactions toward the source of stimulation. , 1969, Journal of experimental psychology.

[2]  J R Simon,et al.  Auditory S-R compatibility: reaction time as a function of ear-hand correspondence and ear-response-location correspondence. , 1970, Journal of experimental psychology.

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

[4]  G. Rizzolatti,et al.  Spatial compatibility and anatomical factors in simple and choice reaction time , 1977, Neuropsychologia.

[5]  Alfonso Caramazza,et al.  Cognitive mechanisms in number processing and calculation: Evidence from dyscalculia , 1985, Brain and Cognition.

[6]  L. G. Gawryszewski,et al.  What is crossed in crossed-hand effects? , 1986 .

[7]  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.

[8]  J. L. Myers,et al.  Regression analyses of repeated measures data in cognitive research. , 1990, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[9]  M. McCloskey.  Cognitive mechanisms in numerical processing: Evidence from acquired dyscalculia , 1992, Cognition.

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

[11]  Jamie I. D. Campbell.  The Nature and origins of mathematical skills , 1992 .

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

[13]  Jamie I. D. Campbell.  Architectures for numerical cognition , 1994, Cognition.

[14]  Paul Macaruso,et al.  Representing and using numerical information. , 1995, The American psychologist.

[15]  B. Butterworth,et al.  Toward a multiroute model of number processing: Impaired number transcoding with preserved calculation skills. , 1995 .

[16]  W. Fias.  The Importance of Magnitude Information in Numerical Processing: Evidence from the SNARC Effect , 1996 .

[17]  Stanislas Dehaene,et al.  Cerebral Pathways for Calculation: Double Dissociation between Rote Verbal and Quantitative Knowledge of Arithmetic , 1997, Cortex.

[18]  D. Berch,et al.  Extracting parity and magnitude from Arabic numerals: developmental changes in number processing and mental representation. , 1999, Journal of experimental child psychology.

[19]  S Dehaene,et al.  CALCULATING WITHOUT READING: UNSUSPECTED RESIDUAL ABILITIES IN PURE ALEXIA , 2000, Cognitive neuropsychology.

[20]  W Fias,et al.  Two routes for the processing of verbal numbers: evidence from the SNARC effect , 2001, Psychological research.

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

[22]  K. Priftis,et al.  Brain damage: Neglect disrupts the mental number line , 2002, Nature.

[23]  Robert W. Proctor,et al.  The role of instructions, practice, and stimulus-hand correspondence on the Simon effect , 2003, Psychological research.

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

[25]  Martin H Fischer,et al.  Cognitive Representation of Negative Numbers , 2003, Psychological science.

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

[27]  R. Proctor,et al.  Intrahemispherical activation, visuomotor transmission, and the Simon effect: comment on Wascher et al. (2001). , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

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

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

[30]  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.

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

[32]  Wim Fias,et al.  Oculomotor bias induced by number perception. , 2004, Experimental psychology.

[33]  Klaus Willmes,et al.  Do Signers Think Differently? the Processing of Number Parity in Deaf Participants , 2004, Cortex.

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

[35]  M. H. Fischer,et al.  Do Negative Numbers Have a Place on the Mental Number Line , 2005 .

[36]  K. Willmes,et al.  The Power of the Mental Number Line: How the Magnitude of Unattended Numbers Affects Performance in an Eriksen Task , 2005 .