Flawed stimulus design in additive-area heuristic studies

Park, Joonkoo

doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104919

Cited by 10 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…That is, training stimuli belonging to the 'small' category were smaller than the 'large' category, in number, area, and also element size, making it possible that children used element size to guide their category judgments. Although we were unable to simultaneously evaluate the effects of number, area, and element size due to issues of high multicollinearity (Park, 2021), we found that when only area and element size were included as predictors, area, but not element size, predicted children's category judgments. Nonetheless, it is possible that even though children were not significantly influenced by element size during test trials, element size differences during training may have predisposed children to attend to all non-numerical information, more generally, during test trials.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 82%

No intrinsic number bias: Evaluating the role of perceptual discriminability in magnitude categorization

Aulet

Lourenco

2022

Developmental Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Accumulating evidence suggests that there is a spontaneous preference for numerical, compared to non‐numerical (e.g., cumulative surface area), information. However, given a paucity of research on the perception of non‐numerical magnitudes, it is unclear whether this preference reflects a specific bias towards number, or a general bias towards the more perceptually discriminable dimension (i.e., number). Here, we found that when the number and area of visual dot displays were matched in mathematical ratio, number was more perceptually discriminable than area in both adults and children. Moreover, both adults and children preferentially categorized these ratio‐matched stimuli based on number, consistent with previous work. However, when number and area were matched in perceptual discriminability, a different pattern of results emerged. In particular, children preferentially categorized stimuli based on area, suggesting that children's previously observed number bias may be due to a mismatch in the perceptual discriminability of number and area, not an intrinsic salience of number. Interestingly, adults continued to categorize the displays on the basis of number. Altogether, these findings suggest a dominant role for area during childhood, refuting the claim that number is inherently and uniquely salient. Yet they also reveal an increased salience of number that emerges over development. Potential explanations for this developmental shift are discussed. Research Highlights Previous work found that children and adults spontaneously categorized dot array stimuli by number, over other magnitudes (e.g., area), suggesting number is uniquely salient. However, here we found that when number and area were matched by ratio, as in prior work, number was significantly more perceptually discriminable than area. When number and area were made equally discriminable (‘perceptually‐matched’), children, contra adults, spontaneously categorized stimuli by area over number (and other non‐numerical magnitudes). These findings suggest that area may be uniquely salient early in childhood, with the previously‐observed number bias not emerging until later in development.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 82%

No intrinsic number bias: Evaluating the role of perceptual discriminability in magnitude categorization

Aulet

Lourenco

2022

Developmental Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…With evidence of an early congruity effect, a remaining question is whether cumulative area was indeed the type of spatial information that was driving the observed effects. As detailed in previous research, multiple types of correlated spatial information are present in arrays of visual objects including cumulative area, spacing, average size, and perimeter (DeWind et al, 2015;Park, 2021). Evidence from behavioral studies that systematically manipulated spatial magnitudes contingent on numerical information suggest that judgments can be based on cumulative area when other spatial magnitudes are present (Aulet & Lourenco, 2021;Tomlinson et al, 2020).…”

Section: Implications For Cumulative Area Representationsmentioning

confidence: 82%

“…Furthermore, questions have been raised regarding whether mental representations of cumulative area are based on mathematical calculations of size (c.f. Park, 2021;Yousif et al, 2020). By applying stimulus generation procedures developed for non-symbolic number research (DeWind et al, 2015) to cumulative area, future research can systematically manipulate multiple spatial magnitudes to identify the relative contributions to early emerging ratio effects in ERP waveforms.…”

Section: Implications For Cumulative Area Representationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Electrophysiological Comparison of Cumulative Area and Non-symbolic Number Judgments

Bonny¹,

Lourenco²

2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mental estimates of non-symbolic magnitudes, or magnitude representations, are recruited during action planning, decision-making, and formal mathematics. The presence of ratio effects has been used as a behavioral and neurophysiological signature of magnitude representations whereas congruity effects have been used as evidence of representational interaction. Theories diverge regarding whether evidence of ratio and congruity effects are due to overlap in representations of different magnitudes. Early interaction views put forward that there are shared perceptual processes that form overlapping magnitude representations. In contrast, late views hold that representations remain distinct and interactions occur when preparing a motor response. Research addressing these views have focused on whether perceiving differences in cumulative area, how much space is occupied by a set of objects, recruits non-symbolic number information, a similar set-based magnitude in dot arrays. The present study investigated the temporal onset of ratio and congruity effects as participants made explicit ordinal judgments about cumulative area and numerical information. Event-related potentials (ERPs) were recorded to identify whether the onset of such effects aligned with the early versus late views. A congruity effect emerged in the P100 waveform, where initial ratio effects for cumulative area and number were detected. These results align with early interaction views of magnitude processing, suggesting shared perceptual mechanisms for cumulative area and number representations. Taken together, these findings suggest that congruity effects for cumulative area and non-symbolic number judgments are generated prior to preparing a decision-response, when magnitude representations are being formed.

show abstract

“…First, the correct interpretation of these studies remains hotly contested, so it's probably too early to draw strong conclusions. For instance, Park (in press) objects that studies which control for perceived area tend to introduce massive incongruencies between number and non-numerical magnitudes – so, given that incongruencies of this sort suppress numerical sensitivity (DeWind et al, 2015), counterevidence of this sort probably underestimates true numerical sensitivity. Second, our target article did acknowledge some of the counterevidence these authors cite.…”

Section: Arguments Against the Orthodox Viewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Numbers, numerosities, and new directions

Clarke¹,

Beck²

2021

Behav Brain Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In our target article, we argued that the number sense represents natural and rational numbers. Here, we respond to the 26 commentaries we received, highlighting new directions for empirical and theoretical research. We discuss two background assumptions, arguments against the number sense, whether the approximate number system (ANS) represents numbers or numerosities, and why the ANS represents rational (but not irrational) numbers.

show abstract

Flawed stimulus design in additive-area heuristic studies

Cited by 10 publications

References 41 publications

No intrinsic number bias: Evaluating the role of perceptual discriminability in magnitude categorization

No intrinsic number bias: Evaluating the role of perceptual discriminability in magnitude categorization

Electrophysiological Comparison of Cumulative Area and Non-symbolic Number Judgments

Numbers, numerosities, and new directions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About