A Linguistic Remark on SNARC: Language and Perceptual Processes in Spatial-Numerical Association

A Linguistic Remark on SNARC: Language and Perceptual Processes in Spatial-Numerical Association Sterling Hutchinson (schtchns@memphis.edu) Department of Psychology / Institute for Intelligent Systems, 365 Innovation Drive Memphis, TN 38152 USA Sophia Johnson (smjhnson@memphis.edu) Department of Psychology / Institute for Intelligent Systems, 365 Innovation Drive Memphis, TN 38152 USA Max M. Louwerse (mlouwerse@memphis.edu) Department of Psychology / Institute for Intelligent Systems, 365 Innovation Drive Memphis, TN 38152 USA Abstract The spatial-numerical association of response codes (SNARC) effect provides evidence for perceptual simulation of symbols. That is, parity judgments with one’s left hand are faster for lower numbers than for higher numbers (with one’s right hand, judgments are faster for higher numbers than for lower numbers). A perceptual simulation account of the SNARC effect leaves little room for a non-embodied explanation, even though recent studies have demonstrated that statistical linguistic data can explain findings from various embodied cognition studies. The current study explored whether such linguistic factors could also explain the SNARC effect. In a response time experiment, participants were asked to make parity judgments of number words. Frequencies of those number words explained the results just as well as a perceptual simulation explanation. Moreover, collocation frequencies (the previous number word and the following number word) also explained response times, further demonstrating that linguistic factors might play an important role in number processing. The results of this experiment show that language encodes information that could also be attributed to perceptual simulations. Consequently, language users might well be using these linguistic cues during number processing. Keywords: SNARC; numerical cognition; mental number line; mental representations; perceptual simulation; embodied cognition; number processing Introduction Intuitively, number manipulation seems more symbolic than perceptual in nature. The computing of numbers, after all, does not require references to the symbols being manipulated or a visual representation of the manipulation process. Nevertheless, a spatial representation of numbers is often thought to facilitate our understanding (Semenza, 2008). When participants are presented with small (1, 2, 3, 4) and large (6, 7, 8, 9) numbers, and are asked to make a parity judgment, they are faster to respond to small numbers with their left hand, and large numbers with their right. This finding is known as the SNARC (spatial-numerical association of response codes) effect (Dehaene, Bossini, & Giraux, 1993; Wood, Nuerk, Willmes, & Fischer, 2008) and suggests that comprehenders perceptually simulate the representation of numbers. Importantly, subjects are not making judgments that would call attention to number magnitude, but instead, they are making a speeded parity judgment. Purportedly, the SNARC effect occurs because participants use mental representations to spatially represent numbers on a number line. Furthermore, the SNARC effect always seems to occur in the same direction as the directional reading conventions of the subject’s culture (i.e., English speakers show a left-to-right SNARC effect while Arabic speakers show the reverse effect) (Shaki, Fischer, & Petrusic, 2009). Researchers have replicated and modified the original SNARC experiment to also demonstrate vertical effects (Ito & Hatta, 2004), as well as right-to-left effects (i.e., opposite of what is expected for English speakers) (Shaki et al., 2009; Zebian, 2005) for other language groups. In fact, Israelis, who read text from right-to-left and who read numbers from left-to-right, show no SNARC effect at all (Shaki et al., 2009). In addition, illiterate Arabic speakers fail to show any SNARC effect (Zebian, 2005). Andres, Ostry, Nicol, and Paus (2008) have shown that physical manipulations of the subject (e.g., crossing hands, or using grasping motions) do not influence the direction of the effect. Yet others have found that the SNARC effect holds when subjects are presented with two-digit numbers (Dehaene et al., 1993; Reynvoet & Brysbaert, 1999) and number words (Fias, 2001), however it is noted that in some cases number word processing may increase response times (RTs) relative to Arabic numeral processing (Dehaene et al., 1993). Furthermore, although the effect may exist for numbers, no such magnitude-based mental organizational system is found for alphabetic letters (e.g., A, B, C, etc.) (Zorzi, Priftis, Meneghello, Marenzi, & Umilta, 2006). Interestingly, the SNARC effect does seem to be influenced by processing strategies employed during the experimental task. Subjects asked to imagine distance on a ruler demonstrate a typical SNARC effect, whereas those who instead imagine numbers representing time on a clock face

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

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

[3]  Danielle S. McNamara,et al.  Handbook of latent semantic analysis , 2007 .

[4]  S. Dehaene,et al.  Cross-linguistic regularities in the frequency of number words , 1992, Cognition.

[5]  M. Louwerse,et al.  The linguistic and embodied nature of conceptual processing , 2010, Cognition.

[6]  Rolf A. Zwaan,et al.  Lateralization of object-shape information in semantic processing , 2004, Cognition.

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

[8]  L. Barsalou,et al.  Whither structured representation? , 1999, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[9]  Tobias Richter,et al.  What Is Wrong With ANOVA and Multiple Regression? Analyzing Sentence Reading Times With Hierarchical Linear Models , 2006 .

[10]  Ramon C. Littell,et al.  SAS for Linear Models , 2002 .

[11]  M. Louwerse.  Embodied relations are encoded in language , 2008, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[12]  G. Lakoff,et al.  Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind , 1988 .

[13]  R. Baayen,et al.  Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items , 2008 .

[14]  M. H. Fischer,et al.  It takes just one word to quash a SNARC. , 2009, Experimental psychology.

[15]  Piotr Winkielman,et al.  Embodied Grounding Social , Cognitive , Affective , and Neuroscientific Approaches , 2009 .

[16]  Rolf A. Zwaan,et al.  PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE Research Article THE EFFECT OF IMPLIED ORIENTATION DERIVED FROM VERBAL CONTEXT ON PICTURE RECOGNITION , 2022 .

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

[18]  M. Damian.  Asymmetries in the processing of Arabic digits and number words , 2004, Memory & cognition.

[19]  G. Lakoff.  Women, fire, and dangerous things : what categories reveal about the mind , 1989 .

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

[21]  Samar Zebian,et al.  Linkages between Number Concepts, Spatial Thinking, and Directionality of Writing: The SNARC Effect and the REVERSE SNARC Effect in English and Arabic Monoliterates, Biliterates, and Illiterate Arabic Speakers , 2005 .

[22]  Michael P. Kaschak,et al.  Grounding language in action , 2002, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[23]  Mia Setic,et al.  The influence of vertical spatial orientation on property verification , 2007 .

[24]  Samuel Shaki,et al.  Reading habits for both words and numbers contribute to the SNARC effect , 2009, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[25]  Peter Brugger,et al.  Stimulus-response compatibility in representational space , 1998, Neuropsychologia.

[26]  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.

[27]  Marco Zorzi,et al.  The spatial representation of numerical and non-numerical sequences: Evidence from neglect , 2006, Neuropsychologia.

[28]  Lawrence W. Barsalou,et al.  Perceptual Processing Affects Conceptual Processing , 2008, Cogn. Sci..

[29]  A. Glenberg.  What memory is for: Creating meaning in the service of action , 1997, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[30]  H. Whitaker,et al.  Handbook of the neuroscience of language , 2008 .

[31]  M. Louwerse.  A Case for Symbol Interdependency 1 Symbolic or Embodied representations : A Case for Symbol Interdependency , 2008 .

[32]  Wim Fias,et al.  Automatic response activation of implicit spatial information: Evidence from the SNARC effect. , 2006, Acta psychologica.

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

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

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

[36]  Max M. Louwerse,et al.  Symbol Interdependency in Symbolic and Embodied Cognition , 2011, Top. Cogn. Sci..

[37]  David J. Ostry,et al.  Time course of number magnitude interference during grasping , 2008, Cortex.

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

[39]  Rolf A. Zwaan,et al.  Grounding Cognition: Introduction to Grounding Cognition: The Role of Perception and Action in Memory, Language, and Thinking , 2005 .