A momentum effect in temporal arithmetic

Bonato, Mario; D'Ovidio, Umberto; Fias, Wim; Zorzi, Mattia

doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104488

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Specifically, there is considerable evidence for a mapping of the past to the left or back space and the future to the front or right space (see Bonato et al, 2012, for review). Our results show that the OM signature does not require input from the visual modality (see also the recent report by Bonato et al (2020)).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

Heuristics and biases in the mental manipulation of magnitudes: Evidence from length and time production

Mioni

Fischer

Shaki

2020

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is a debate about whether and why we overestimate addition and underestimate subtraction results (Operational Momentum or OM effect). Spatial-attentional accounts of OM compete with a model which postulates that OM reflects a weighted combination of multiple arithmetic heuristics and biases (AHAB; Shaki, Pinhas, & Fischer, 2018). The present study addressed this debate with the theoretically diagnostic distinction between zero-problems (e.g., 3 + 0, 3 - 0) and non-zero problems (e.g., 2 + 1, 4 - 1) because AHAB, in contrast to all other accounts, uniquely predicts reverse OM for the latter problem type. In two tests (line-length production and time production), participants indeed produced shorter lines and under-estimated time intervals in non-zero additions compared to subtractions. This predicted interaction between operation and problem type extends OM to non-spatial magnitudes and highlights the strength of AHAB regarding different problem types and modalities during the mental manipulation of magnitudes. They also suggest that OM reflects methodological details while reverse OM is the more representative behavioural signature of mental arithmetic.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%