Grammatical number elicits SNARC and MARC effects as a function of task demands

Despite the robustness of the spatial–numerical association of response codes (SNARC) and linguistic markedness of response codes (MARC) effect, the mechanisms that underlie these effects are still under debate. In this paper, we investigate the extraction of quantity information from German number words and nouns inflected for singular and plural using two alternative forced choice paradigms. These paradigms are applied to different tasks to investigate how access to quantity representation is modulated by task demands. In Experiment 1, we replicated previous SNARC findings for number words—that is, a relative left-hand advantage for words denoting small numbers and a right-hand advantage for words denoting large numbers in semantic tasks (parity decision and quantity comparison). No SNARC effect was obtained for surface or lexical processing tasks (font categorization and lexical decision). In Experiment 2, we found that German words inflected for singular had a relative left-hand advantage, and German words inflected for plural a relative right-hand advantage, showing a SNARC-like effect for grammatical number. The effect interfered, however, with a MARC-like effect based on the markedness asymmetry of singulars and plurals. These two effects appear to be dissociated by response latency rather than task demands, with MARC being more pronounced in early responses and SNARC being more pronounced in late responses. The present findings shed light on the relationship of conceptual number and grammatical number and constrain current accounts of the SNARC and MARC effects.

[1]  Anja Ischebeck,et al.  On the relative speed account of number-size interference in comparative judgments of numerals. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[2]  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.

[3]  Arne Nagels,et al.  Where the Mass Counts: Common Cortical Activation for Different Kinds of Nonsingularity , 2012, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

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

[5]  Herbert H. Clark,et al.  Linguistic processes in deductive reasoning. , 1969 .

[6]  David A. Balota,et al.  Visual Word Recognition: The Journey from Features to Meaning (A Travel Update) , 2006 .

[7]  M. Coltheart,et al.  The quarterly journal of experimental psychology , 1985 .

[8]  Tyler Marghetis,et al.  Placing Numbers in Behavioral Space: Activity-Specific Interactions between Number and Space with a Single Response Button , 2013, CogSci.

[9]  Frank Domahs,et al.  Number words are special: Evidence from a case of primary progressive aphasia , 2006, Journal of Neurolinguistics.

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

[11]  M Coltheart,et al.  DRC: a dual route cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud. , 2001, Psychological review.

[12]  Y. Chen,et al.  The time-course of single-word reading: Evidence from fast behavioral and brain responses , 2012, NeuroImage.

[13]  R. Ratcliff Group reaction time distributions and an analysis of distribution statistics. , 1979, Psychological bulletin.

[14]  Martin H. Fischer,et al.  The Cultural Number Line: A Review of Cultural and Linguistic Influences on the Development of Number Processing , 2011 .

[15]  Joseph H. Greenberg,et al.  Some Universals of Grammar with Particular Reference to the Order of Meaningful Elements , 1990, On Language.

[16]  David Barner,et al.  On the relation between the acquisition of singular-plural morpho-syntax and the conceptual distinction between one and more than one. , 2007, Developmental science.

[17]  Michelle E. Costanzo,et al.  Spatial and temporal features of superordinate semantic processing studied with fMRI and EEG , 2013, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

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

[19]  A. Jacobs,et al.  The word frequency effect: a review of recent developments and implications for the choice of frequency estimates in German. , 2011, Experimental psychology.

[20]  T. Loetscher,et al.  Head turns bias the brain's internal random generator , 2008, Current Biology.

[21]  Bodo Winter,et al.  More is up... and right: Random number generation along two axes , 2013, CogSci.

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

[23]  Y. Lippa,et al.  An explanation of orthogonal S-R compatibility effects that vary with hand or response position: The end-state comfort hypothesis , 2001, Perception & psychophysics.

[24]  MARTIN HASPELMATH,et al.  1 Against markedness ( and what to replace it with ) 1 MARTIN HASPELMATH , 2005 .

[25]  J. Morais,et al.  Spatial associations for musical stimuli: a piano in the head? , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[26]  Tyler Marghetis,et al.  Making SNAP Judgments: Rethinking the Spatial Representation of Number , 2011, CogSci.

[27]  M. Hauser,et al.  Does participation in intergroup conflict depend on numerical assessment, range location, or rank for wild chimpanzees? , 2001, Animal Behaviour.

[28]  W. Schneider,et al.  Cross‐cultural effect on the brain revisited: Universal structures plus writing system variation , 2005, Human brain mapping.

[29]  J. Hummel,et al.  Why spatial-numeric associations aren't evidence for a mental number line , 2008 .

[30]  James L. McClelland,et al.  A distributed, developmental model of word recognition and naming. , 1989, Psychological review.

[31]  Barbara W. Sarnecka,et al.  From grammatical number to exact numbers: Early meanings of ‘one’, ‘two’, and ‘three’ in English, Russian, and Japanese , 2007, Cognitive Psychology.

[32]  Steven Pinker,et al.  Computation of semantic number from morphological information , 2005 .

[33]  W. Gevers,et al.  The SNARC effect does not imply a mental number line , 2008, Cognition.

[34]  Julio Santiago,et al.  Flexible foundations of abstract thought: A review and a theory , 2011 .

[35]  K. Willmes,et al.  The universal SNARC effect: the association between number magnitude and space is amodal. , 2005, Experimental psychology.

[36]  Manuel Carreiras,et al.  Where syntax meets math: Right intraparietal sulcus activation in response to grammatical number agreement violations , 2010, NeuroImage.

[37]  Linda R. Waugh Marked and unmarked: A choice between unequals in semiotic structure , 1982 .

[38]  K. Zimmer Affixal negation in English and other languages : an investigation of restricted productivity , 1966 .

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

[40]  David Barner,et al.  Grammatical morphology as a source of early number word meanings , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[41]  J. Grainger Word frequency and neighborhood frequency effects in lexical decision and naming. , 1990 .

[42]  Marc Brysbaert,et al.  Single-digit and two-digit Arabic numerals address the same semantic number line , 1999, Cognition.

[43]  M. Brysbaert,et al.  The SNARC Effect in the Processing of Second-Language Number Words: Further Evidence for Strong Lexico-Semantic Connections , 2008, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[44]  Alfonso Caramazza,et al.  VARIETIES OF PURE ALEXIA: THE CASE OF FAILURE TO ACCESS GRAPHEMIC REPRESENTATIONS. , 1998, Cognitive neuropsychology.

[45]  Joseph H. Greenberg,et al.  Language Universals: With Special Reference to Feature Hierarchies , 1966 .

[46]  H S Terrace,et al.  Ordering of the numerosities 1 to 9 by monkeys. , 1998, Science.

[47]  Guilherme Wood,et al.  On the Cognitive Link between Space and Number: A Meta-Analysis of the SNARC Effect , 2008 .

[48]  E. Spelke,et al.  Language and Conceptual Development series Core systems of number , 2004 .

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