The Heterogeneous Nature of Number–Space Interactions

It is generally accepted that the mental representation of numerical magnitude consists of a spatial “mental number line” (MNL) with smaller quantities on the left and larger quantities on the right. However, the amount of dissociations between tasks that were believed to tap onto this representational medium is accumulating, questioning the universality of this model. The aim of the present study was to unravel the functional relationship between the different tasks and effects that are typically used as evidence for the MNL. For this purpose, a group of right brain damaged patients (with and without neglect) and healthy controls were subjected to physical line bisection, number interval bisection, parity judgment, and magnitude comparison. Using principal component analysis, different orthogonal components were extracted. We discuss how this component structure captures the dissociations reported in the literature and how it can be considered as a first step toward a new unitary framework for understanding the relation between numbers and space.

[1]  Peter Brugger,et al.  Random number generation in neglect patients reveals enhanced response stereotypy, but no neglect in number space , 2009, Neuropsychologia.

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

[3]  D. Boisson,et al.  Does Action Make the Link Between Number and Space Representation? , 2004, Psychological science.

[4]  D. Perani,et al.  The anatomy of unilateral neglect after right-hemisphere stroke lesions. A clinical/CT-scan correlation study in man , 1986, Neuropsychologia.

[5]  Wim Fias,et al.  Numbers and space: a computational model of the SNARC effect. , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[6]  B. Anderson.  Spared awareness for the left side of internal visual images in patients with left‐sided extrapersonal neglect , 1993, Neurology.

[7]  Jean-Philippe van Dijck,et al.  Numbers are associated with different types of spatial information depending on the task , 2009, Cognition.

[8]  Jean-Philippe van Dijck,et al.  A working memory account for spatial–numerical associations , 2011, Cognition.

[9]  Y. Rossetti,et al.  Exaggerated leftward bias in the mental number line of patients with schizophrenia , 2007, Brain and Cognition.

[10]  Marco Zorzi,et al.  The spatial representation of numbers: evidence from neglect and pseudoneglect , 2008, Experimental Brain Research.

[11]  M. McCourt,et al.  Pseudoneglect: a review and meta-analysis of performance factors in line bisection tasks , 2000, Neuropsychologia.

[12]  J. Marshall,et al.  Spatial cognition: evidence from visual neglect , 2003, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[13]  Stephen Warwick Looney,et al.  How to Use Tests for Univariate Normality to Assess Multivariate Normality , 1995 .

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

[15]  Paola Guariglia,et al.  Dissociation between physical and mental number line bisection in right hemisphere brain damage , 2005, Nature Neuroscience.

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

[17]  John C. Marshall,et al.  When Right Goes Left: An Investigation of Line Bisection in a Case of Visual Neglect , 1989, Cortex.

[18]  Stella F. Lourenco,et al.  Spatial attention and the mental number line: Evidence for characteristic biases and compression , 2007, Neuropsychologia.

[19]  Y. Rossetti,et al.  Pseudoneglect in schizophrenia: A line bisection study with cueing , 2007, Cognitive neuropsychiatry.

[20]  Silke M. Göbel,et al.  Parietal rTMS distorts the mental number line: Simulating ‘spatial’ neglect in healthy subjects , 2006, Neuropsychologia.

[21]  Wim Fias,et al.  Spatial representation of number , 2014 .

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

[23]  T. Verguts,et al.  Beyond the mental number line: A neural network model of number–space interactions , 2010, Cognitive Psychology.

[24]  G. A. Marcoulides,et al.  An Introduction to Applied Multivariate Analysis , 2008 .

[25]  Brian Butterworth,et al.  Contribution of frontal cortex to the spatial representation of number , 2011, Cortex.

[26]  Franco Cauda,et al.  Mental number line disruption in a right-neglect patient after a left-hemisphere stroke , 2009, Brain and Cognition.

[27]  Patrik Vuilleumier,et al.  The Number Space and Neglect , 2004, Cortex.

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

[29]  Kristopher J Preacher,et al.  On the practice of dichotomization of quantitative variables. , 2002, Psychological methods.

[30]  Wim Fias,et al.  How number is associated with space? The role of working memory. , 2011 .

[31]  T. Schenkenberg,et al.  Line bisection and unilateral visual neglect in patients with neurologic impairment , 1980, Neurology.

[32]  Marco Zorzi,et al.  Visuospatial priming of the mental number line , 2008, Cognition.

[33]  Wim Fias,et al.  Non-spatial neglect for the mental number line , 2011, Neuropsychologia.

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

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

[36]  Marco Zorzi,et al.  Interactions between perceptual and numerical space , 2011, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[37]  Anil K. Bera,et al.  A test for normality of observations and regression residuals , 1987 .

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

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

[40]  M. Corbetta,et al.  Control of goal-directed and stimulus-driven attention in the brain , 2002, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[41]  P. Pantano,et al.  Unilateral neglect restricted to visual imagery , 1993, Nature.

[42]  Wim Fias,et al.  Verbal-spatial and visuospatial coding of number-space interactions. , 2010, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[43]  Paola Guariglia,et al.  Spatial Orienting Biases in the Decimal Numeral System , 2009, Current Biology.

[44]  C. Semenza,et al.  The role of working memory in the association between number magnitude and space. , 2008, Acta psychologica.

[45]  A. Postma,et al.  On the hemispheric specialization for categorical and coordinate spatial relations: a review of the current evidence , 2003, Neuropsychologia.

[46]  R. Rosenfeld.  Nature , 2009, Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery.

[47]  Demis Basso,et al.  Motion on Numbers: Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation on the Ventral Intraparietal Sulcus Alters Both Numerical and Motion Processes , 2009, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[48]  S. Dehaene,et al.  Interactions between number and space in parietal cortex , 2005, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

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

[50]  Marco Zorzi,et al.  Explicit versus Implicit Processing of Representational Space in Neglect: Dissociations in Accessing the Mental Number Line , 2006, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[51]  G. Vallar,et al.  Tapping effects on numerical bisection , 2010, Experimental Brain Research.

[52]  T. Loetscher,et al.  Lucky numbers: Spatial neglect affects physical, but not representational, choices in a Lotto task , 2010, Cortex.