A general magnitude system in human adults: Evidence from a subliminal priming paradigm

Lourenco, Stella F.; Ayzenberg, Vladislav; Lyu, Jennifer

doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2016.04.013

Cited by 26 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 55 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Despite this, one recent study undermines this linguistic account by revealing cross-domain interference occurring even when linguistic cues cannot be used at the encoding or response stage. In this study, participants' spatial judgments were biased even when Arabic numerals were presented subliminally and thus language was unlikely to be invoked to encode or respond to quantity information (Lourenco, Ayzenberg, & Lyu, 2016).…”

Section: Interactions Across Representations Of Time Number and Spacementioning

confidence: 75%

Number, time, and space are not singularly represented: Evidence against a common magnitude system beyond early childhood

Hamamouche

Cordes

2019

Psychon Bull Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Our ability to represent temporal, spatial, and numerical information is critical for understanding the world around us. Given the prominence of quantitative representations in the natural world, numerous cognitive, neurobiological, and developmental models have been proposed as a means of describing how we track quantity. One prominent theory posits that time, space, and number are represented by a common magnitude system, or a common neural locus (i.e., ). Despite numerous similarities in representations of time, space, and number, an increasing body of literature reveals striking dissociations in how each quantity is processed, particularly later in development. These findings have led many researchers to consider the possibility that separate systems may be responsible for processing each quantity. This review will analyze evidence in favor of a common magnitude system, particularly in infancy, which will be tempered by counter evidence, the majority of which comes from experiments with children and adult participants. After reviewing the current data, we argue that although the common magnitude system may account for quantity representations in infancy, the data do not provide support for this system throughout the life span. We also identify future directions for the field and discuss the likelihood of the developmental divergence model of quantity representation, like that of Newcombe (Ecological Psychology, 2, 147-157, 2014), as a more plausible account of quantity development.Keywords Nonsymbolic quantity processing . Temporal precision . Spatial processing . Numerical acuity Our lives are inundated with temporal, spatial, and numerical information. Given the fundamental nature of quantity processing, it may not be surprising that infants, children, adults, and even nonhuman species rely on quantity information to navigate the world. The ability to track quantities is vital for basic learning processes such as foraging (e.g.

show abstract

Section: Interactions Across Representations Of Time Number and Spacementioning

confidence: 75%

Number, time, and space are not singularly represented: Evidence against a common magnitude system beyond early childhood

Hamamouche

Cordes

2019

Psychon Bull Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Walsh (2003) further proposed "a theory of magnitudes" (ATOM), arguing that all dimensional magnitudes are gauged using a common metric and represented as dimension-independent representation of quantities, or mental magnitudes (see also Bonn & Cantlon, 2017;Martin, Wiener, & van Wassenhove, 2017;Lourenco & Longo, 2010; see Lourenco & Longo, 2011, for a review). Support for this account comes for both behavioural studies showing cross-dimensional interactions (e.g., Lambrechts, Walsh, van Wassenhove, 2013;Lourenco, Ayzenberg, & Lyu, 2016) and neural imaging studies showing overlapping activation in the intraparietal sulcus when different dimensional magnitudes are processed (see Bueti & Walsh, 2009, for a review).…”

Section: Mechanistic Accounts Of Cross-dimensional Magnitude Interactmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cross-dimensional magnitude interactions arise from memory interference

Cai

Wang

Shen

et al. 2018

Cognitive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Magnitudes from different dimensions (e.g., space and time) interact with each other in perception, but how these interactions occur remains unclear. In four experiments, we investigated whether cross-dimensional magnitude interactions arise from memory interference. In Experiment 1, participants perceived a constant-length line consisting of two line segments of complementary lengths and presented for a variable stimulus duration; then they received a cue about which of the two segment lengths to later reproduce. Participants were to first reproduce the stimulus duration and then the cued length. Reproduced durations increased as a function of the cued length if the cue was given before duration was retrieved from memory for reproduction (i.e. before duration reproduction; Experiment 1) but not if it was given after the duration memory had been retrieved from memory (i.e. after the start of duration reproduction; Experiment 2). These findings demonstrate that space-time interaction arises as a result of memory interference when length and duration information co-exist in working memory. Experiment 3 further demonstrated spatial interference on duration memories from memories of filled lengths (i.e. solid line segments) but not from noisier memories of unfilled lengths (demarcated empty spatial intervals), thus highlighting the role of memory noise in space-time interaction. Finally, Experiment 4 showed that time also exerted memory interference on space when space was presented as (relatively noisy) unfilled lengths. Taken together, these findings suggest that cross-dimensional magnitude interactions arise as a result of memory interference and the extent and direction of the interaction depend on the relative memory noises of the target and interfering dimensions. We propose a Bayesian model whereby the estimation of a magnitude is based on the integration of the noisily encoded percept of the target magnitude and the prior knowledge that magnitudes co-vary across dimensions (e.g., space and time). We discuss implications for cross-dimensional magnitude interactions in general.

show abstract

“…Some investigators have proposed that different magnitudes (e.g., number, size, and duration) are processed as part of an integrated system that draws on common neural and cognitive resources (Bonn & Cantlon, ; Bueti & Walsh, ; Lourenco, ; Walsh, ). Support for such a general magnitude system comes from evidence of overlapping activation in parietal cortex (Cantlon, Platt, & Brannon, ; Cohen Kadosh, Lammertyn, & Izard, ) and of cognitive interactions between different magnitudes (e.g., Henik & Tzelgov, ; Lourenco, Ayzenberg, & Lyu, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is Emotional Magnitude Spatialized? A Further Investigation

2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Accumulating evidence suggests that different magnitudes (e.g., number, size, and duration) are spatialized in the mind according to a common left–right metric, consistent with a generalized system for representing magnitude. A previous study conducted by two of us (Holmes & Lourenco, ) provided evidence that this metric extends to the processing of emotional magnitude, or the intensity of emotion expressed in faces. Recently, however, Pitt and Casasanto () showed that the earlier effects may have been driven by a left–right mapping of mouth size rather than emotional magnitude, and they found no evidence for an emotional magnitude mapping when using words as stimuli. Here, we report two new experiments that further examine these conclusions. In Experiment 1, using face stimuli with mouths occluded, we replicate the original finding: Less emotional faces were associated with the left and more emotional faces with the right. However, we also find that people can reliably infer the sizes of the occluded mouths, and that these inferred mouth sizes can explain the observed left–right mapping. In Experiment 2, we show that comparative judgments of emotional words yield a left–right mapping of emotional magnitude not attributable to stimulus confounds. Based on these findings, we concur with Pitt and Casasanto that faces pose challenges for isolating the forces driving spatialization, but we suggest that emotional magnitude, when assessed using unconfounded stimuli in a sufficiently sensitive task, may indeed be spatialized as originally proposed. Suggestions for further research on the spatialization of emotional magnitude are discussed.

show abstract

A general magnitude system in human adults: Evidence from a subliminal priming paradigm

Cited by 26 publications

References 55 publications

Number, time, and space are not singularly represented: Evidence against a common magnitude system beyond early childhood

Number, time, and space are not singularly represented: Evidence against a common magnitude system beyond early childhood

Cross-dimensional magnitude interactions arise from memory interference

Is Emotional Magnitude Spatialized? A Further Investigation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About