Can perceiving letters cause spatial shifts of attention?

Nakhai, Sara; Pesciarelli, Francesca; Mapelli, Daniela; Cacciari, Cristina

doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.01.014

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, when Previtali et al (2010) instructed participants to learn a list of nine words and then perform an order-relevant classification task or order-irrelevant classification task, the researchers were able to replicate the ordinal position effect in serial learning. Although most studies have found that all numbers and order information were represented spatially, several studies have indicated that the mechanism of the SNARC effect and the ordinal position effect was different (Casarotti et al, 2007;Dehaene et al, 1993;Dodd et al, 2008;Ginsburg & Gevers, 2015;Jan, Janosch, Telse, Marcus, & Sven, 2013;Nakhai, Pesciarelli, Mapelli, & Cacciari, 2012;Turconi, Campbell, & Seron, 2006;Wang, Liu, Shi, & Kang, 2018;Zhao et al, 2012). For example, Dodd et al (2008) investigated whether letters, days, and months could shift individual attention in a way similar to numbers, and they found that while numbers could shift individual attention to the left or right according to numerical magnitude, the same was not true for letters, days, and months.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Mechanism of the Ordinal Position Effect: Stability Across Sense Modalities and the Hands Crossed Context

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ordinal position effect posits that items positioned earlier in an ordinal sequence are responded to faster with the left key than the right key, and items positioned later in an ordinal sequence are responded to faster with the right key than the left key. Although the mechanism of the ordinal position effect has been investigated in many studies, it is unclear whether the ordinal position effect can extend to the auditory modality and the hands crossed context. Therefore, the present study employed days as the order information to investigate this question. Days were visually or acoustically displayed on a screen in random order, and participants were instructed to judge whether the probe day they perceived was before or after the current day (days-relevant task) or to identify the color or voice of the probe day they perceived (days-irrelevant task). The results indicate the following: (a) The days before the current day were responded to faster with the left key than the right key, and the days after the current day were responded to faster with the right key than the left key, both when the days-relevant task and the days-irrelevant task were performed, regardless of the sense modality. (b) The ordinal position effect for judgments of days was also obtained in the auditory modality even when the hands were crossed. These results indicate that the ordinal position effect can extend to the auditory modality and the hands crossed context, similar to the spatial-numerical association of response codes effect of numbers.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Mechanism of the Ordinal Position Effect: Stability Across Sense Modalities and the Hands Crossed Context

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although a SNARC-like effect (i.e., faster leftward responses for early letters of the alphabet) has also been demonstrated (Gevers et al, 2003), letters typically show no (or weaker) spatial associations (Dehaene et al, 1993;Dodd et al, 2008;Fischer, 2003;Goffin et al, 2020;Hoffmann et al, 2016). This might be related to the fact that it takes longer to search for a specific letter throughout the entire alphabet (and therefore to activate a spatial code) when compared to search through a number interval from 1-9 (Nakhai et al, 2012). Additionally, letters have not only a position in the alphabet but also on the computer keyboard, which can lead to conflicting long-term associations with space (Kozlik et al, 2013).…”

Section: Implications For Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%