Bilateral field interactions and hemispheric asymmetry in number comparison

Abstract

We investigated bilateral field interactions and hemispheric asymmetry in number comparison. A numerical comparison task with three different stimulus notations (Arabic numerals, word numerals and bar graphs) was used. In all conditions, a target was displayed in one visual field, simultaneously with a distractor of the same format in the other visual field. Participants had to indicate manually whether the magnitude of the target was small or large, ignoring the distractor stimulus. Only in the condition with Arabic numerals did we obtain some evidence for a LVF advantage, which argues against a strong laterality of number magnitude representations. Significant interactions between target and distractor values were observed, indicating rich interhemispheric interactions. The interactions were mainly situated at the response stage, but the presence of a bilateral identity effect also points to interactions at the input level.

Interhemispheric stroop-like interference in number comparison: Evidence for strong interhemispheric integration of semantic number information.

“…In conclusion, our data complement and replicate previous research (Ratinckx et al, 2001) that pointed to an equivalent bilateral representation of number magnitude in the cerebral hemispheres with strong interhemispheric interactions. The present experiments demonstrate that interhemispheric interactions in number comparison are situated at both the semantic and motor levels.…”

“…As expected from previous research (e.g., Boles, 1986;Ratinckx et al, 2001), no hemispheric differences were observed in the number comparison task. Neither in the intrahemispheric nor in the interhemispheric conditions did we observe significant differences between LVF and RVF.…”

“…As expected from previous research (Ratinckx et al, 2001), significant bilateral field interactions between the target and the distractor were obtained, showing rich interhemispheric interactions in number comparison. First, there was a response compatibility effect: Responses were on average 25 ms faster when target and distractor elicited the same response (small-small or large-large) than when they asked for different responses (small-large or large-small).…”

“…Our experiments clearly showed that the interhemispheric distance effect we observed was situated at the semantic level and not at the perceptual level. In neither the intrahemispheric nor the interhemispheric conditions did we find any evidence of perceptual priming, which is in line with the hypothesis of Boles (1986) that magnitude judgment is only weakly determined by the perception of the specific number information, thereby producing less strong VHF effects than other numerical tasks, such as number recognition or odd–even judgment (see also Ratinckx et al, 2001). This hypothesis predicts weaker perceptual priming in magnitude judgment than in number recognition or odd–even judgment.…”

Interhemispheric stroop-like interference in number comparison: Evidence for strong interhemispheric integration of semantic number information.

“…In conclusion, our data complement and replicate previous research (Ratinckx et al, 2001) that pointed to an equivalent bilateral representation of number magnitude in the cerebral hemispheres with strong interhemispheric interactions. The present experiments demonstrate that interhemispheric interactions in number comparison are situated at both the semantic and motor levels.…”

“…As expected from previous research (e.g., Boles, 1986;Ratinckx et al, 2001), no hemispheric differences were observed in the number comparison task. Neither in the intrahemispheric nor in the interhemispheric conditions did we observe significant differences between LVF and RVF.…”

“…As expected from previous research (Ratinckx et al, 2001), significant bilateral field interactions between the target and the distractor were obtained, showing rich interhemispheric interactions in number comparison. First, there was a response compatibility effect: Responses were on average 25 ms faster when target and distractor elicited the same response (small-small or large-large) than when they asked for different responses (small-large or large-small).…”

“…Our experiments clearly showed that the interhemispheric distance effect we observed was situated at the semantic level and not at the perceptual level. In neither the intrahemispheric nor the interhemispheric conditions did we find any evidence of perceptual priming, which is in line with the hypothesis of Boles (1986) that magnitude judgment is only weakly determined by the perception of the specific number information, thereby producing less strong VHF effects than other numerical tasks, such as number recognition or odd–even judgment (see also Ratinckx et al, 2001). This hypothesis predicts weaker perceptual priming in magnitude judgment than in number recognition or odd–even judgment.…”

How do incorrect results change the processing of arithmetic information? Evidence from a divided visual field experiment

“……”

Interhemispheric stroop-like interference in number comparison: Evidence for strong interhemispheric integration of semantic number information.

“…In conclusion, our data complement and replicate previous research (Ratinckx et al, 2001) that pointed to an equivalent bilateral representation of number magnitude in the cerebral hemispheres with strong interhemispheric interactions. The present experiments demonstrate that interhemispheric interactions in number comparison are situated at both the semantic and motor levels.…”

“…As expected from previous research (e.g., Boles, 1986;Ratinckx et al, 2001), no hemispheric differences were observed in the number comparison task. Neither in the intrahemispheric nor in the interhemispheric conditions did we observe significant differences between LVF and RVF.…”

“…As expected from previous research (Ratinckx et al, 2001), significant bilateral field interactions between the target and the distractor were obtained, showing rich interhemispheric interactions in number comparison. First, there was a response compatibility effect: Responses were on average 25 ms faster when target and distractor elicited the same response (small-small or large-large) than when they asked for different responses (small-large or large-small).…”

“…Our experiments clearly showed that the interhemispheric distance effect we observed was situated at the semantic level and not at the perceptual level. In neither the intrahemispheric nor the interhemispheric conditions did we find any evidence of perceptual priming, which is in line with the hypothesis of Boles (1986) that magnitude judgment is only weakly determined by the perception of the specific number information, thereby producing less strong VHF effects than other numerical tasks, such as number recognition or odd–even judgment (see also Ratinckx et al, 2001). This hypothesis predicts weaker perceptual priming in magnitude judgment than in number recognition or odd–even judgment.…”

How do incorrect results change the processing of arithmetic information? Evidence from a divided visual field experiment

“……”

Interhemispheric stroop-like interference in number comparison: Evidence for strong interhemispheric integration of semantic number information.

“…In conclusion, our data complement and replicate previous research (Ratinckx et al, 2001) that pointed to an equivalent bilateral representation of number magnitude in the cerebral hemispheres with strong interhemispheric interactions. The present experiments demonstrate that interhemispheric interactions in number comparison are situated at both the semantic and motor levels.…”

“…As expected from previous research (e.g., Boles, 1986;Ratinckx et al, 2001), no hemispheric differences were observed in the number comparison task. Neither in the intrahemispheric nor in the interhemispheric conditions did we observe significant differences between LVF and RVF.…”

“…As expected from previous research (Ratinckx et al, 2001), significant bilateral field interactions between the target and the distractor were obtained, showing rich interhemispheric interactions in number comparison. First, there was a response compatibility effect: Responses were on average 25 ms faster when target and distractor elicited the same response (small-small or large-large) than when they asked for different responses (small-large or large-small).…”

“…Our experiments clearly showed that the interhemispheric distance effect we observed was situated at the semantic level and not at the perceptual level. In neither the intrahemispheric nor the interhemispheric conditions did we find any evidence of perceptual priming, which is in line with the hypothesis of Boles (1986) that magnitude judgment is only weakly determined by the perception of the specific number information, thereby producing less strong VHF effects than other numerical tasks, such as number recognition or odd–even judgment (see also Ratinckx et al, 2001). This hypothesis predicts weaker perceptual priming in magnitude judgment than in number recognition or odd–even judgment.…”

How do incorrect results change the processing of arithmetic information? Evidence from a divided visual field experiment

“……”