Response trajectories capture the continuous dynamics of the size congruity effect

Faulkenberry, Thomas J.; Cruise, Alexander; Lavro, Dmitri; Shaki, Samuel

doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2015.11.010

Cited by 41 publications

(66 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Another reason that our results are compatible with the lateselection/shared-decision account is that our effects originating at the level of top-down attention fed forward to influence behavior in the decision stage, as described by Santens and Verguts (2011) and Faulkenberry et al (2016). Consistent with this view, we hypothesized that the targets and distractors accumulate activation in numerical-and physical-size nodes, and that the item that accumulates the most activation is selected.…”

Section: The Shared-representation and Shared-decision Accountssupporting

confidence: 75%

“…As in Experiments 1 and 2, these results suggest that in the incongruent conditions, the target's numerical and physical sizes activated competing response nodes in parallel (Faulkenberry et al, 2016;Santens & Verguts, 2011), but in Experiment 4 the distractors' physical size was more salient, and so had more influence. The target accumulated activation in the correct response node, and over time eventually won the competition against the distractors.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 52%

“…According to the shared-representation account (Schwarz & Heinze, 1998;Walsh, 2003), numerical and physical sizes are initially mapped onto a single mental construct and remain integrated throughout the entire processing sequence. In contrast, the shareddecision account (Faulkenberry, Cruise, Lavro, & Shaki, 2016;Santens & Verguts, 2011) asserts that numerical and physical sizes are initially mapped onto two distinct mental constructs, and that the processing of numerical and physical sizes proceeds along separate parallel pathways that only interact at the decision level. Recently, Risko, Maloney, and Fugelsang (2013) proposed an alternative account based on attention.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Accordingly, search should be less efficient (i.e., steeper RTs as a function of display size) in Experiment 1 than in Experiment 2. Once participants reached the target, on congruent trials the target's numerical and physical sizes should both activate the correct response node, but on incongruent trials the target's numerical and physical sizes should activate competing response nodes (Faulkenberry et al, 2016;Santens & Verguts, 2011), so in both Experiments 1 and 2 the responses should be faster in congruent than in incongruent trials. The target's physical size can be directly extracted from its visual appearance, whereas determining the target's numerical size entails an extra step of connecting its appearance with symbolic associations stored in memory (Lupyan, Thompson-Schill, & Swingley, 2010;Schwarz & Heinze, 1998).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Bottom-up and top-down attentional contributions to the size congruity effect

Sobel

Puri

Faulkenberry

2016

Atten Percept Psychophys

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The size congruity effect refers to the interaction between the numerical and physical (i.e., font) sizes of digits in a numerical (or physical) magnitude selection task. Although various accounts of the size congruity effect have attributed this interaction to either an early representational stage or a late decision stage, only Risko, Maloney, and Fugelsang (Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 75, 1137-1147) have asserted a central role for attention. In the present study, we used a visual search paradigm to further study the role of attention in the size congruity effect. In Experiments 1 and 2, we showed that manipulating top-down attention (via the task instructions) had a significant impact on the size congruity effect. The interaction between numerical and physical size was larger for numerical size comparison (Exp. 1) than for physical size comparison (Exp. 2). In the remaining experiments, we boosted the feature salience by using a unique target color (Exp. 3) or by increasing the display density by using threedigit numerals (Exps. 4 and 5). As expected, a color singleton target abolished the size congruity effect. Searching for threedigit targets based on numerical size (Exp. 4) resulted in a large size congruity effect, but search based on physical size (Exp. 5) abolished the effect. Our results reveal a substantial role for top-down attention in the size congruity effect, which we interpreted as support for a shared-decision account.

show abstract

Section: The Shared-representation and Shared-decision Accountssupporting

confidence: 75%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 52%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Bottom-up and top-down attentional contributions to the size congruity effect

Sobel

Puri

Faulkenberry

2016

Atten Percept Psychophys

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Variations of this idea have been used to explain many findings in numerical cognition (Faulkenberry, Cruise, Lavro, & Shaki, 2016;Faulkenberry, Montgomery, & Tennes, 2015;Marghetis, Núñez, & Bergen, 2014;Weaver & Arrington, 2013). These studies all describe phenomena related to response competition in numerical judgments.…”

Section: Response Competition Viewmentioning

confidence: 99%

What is in a reach? Domain-general spatial modulation of motor responses by number representations

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Gaze, pointing, and reaching movements are thought to provide a window to internal cognitive states. In the case of numerical cognition, it has been found that the left-right deviation of a reaching movement is modulated by the relative magnitude of values in a number comparison task. Some have argued that these patterns directly reflect the representation of a logarithmically compressed mental number line (direct mapping view). However, other studies suggest that the modulation of motor outputs by numerical value could be a more general decision-making phenomenon (response competition view). Here we test the generality of interactions between the motor system and numerical processing by comparing subjects' reach trajectories during two different nonverbal tasks: numerosity comparison and facial expression comparison. We found that reaching patterns were practically identical in both tasks -reach trajectories were equally sensitive to stimulus similarity in the numerical and face comparisons. The data provide strong support for the response competition view that motor outputs are modulated by domain-general decision processes, and reflect generic decision confidence or accumulation of evidence related to mental comparison. When asked to point to the larger of two numbers, one presented to the left and another to the right, subjects trajectories take a medial route when the numerical distance is close, and a more direct one when it is far (Santens, Goossens, & Verguts, 2011;Song & Nakayama, 2008). Such results imply that motor computations are penetrated by cognitive processing -the task of comparing numbers interacts with the path of the motor response. Modulations of motor responses by cognitive processes are not exclusive to number but are observed across a variety of domains, including intertemporal discounting, random dot motion, and phonology (Chapman et al., 2010a;Dshemuchadse, Scherbaum, & Goschke, 2013;Freeman & Ambady, 2011;Freeman, Ambady, Rule, & Johnson, 2008;Friedman, Brown, & Finkbeiner, 2013;Gallivan et al., 2011;Koop & Johnson, 2013;McKinstry, Dale, & Spivey, 2008;Spivey, Grosjean, & Knoblich, 2005;van der Wel, Sebanz, & Knoblich, 2014). jnc.psychopen.eu | 2363-8761 Although prior research suggests that reach trajectories are affected by cognitive processes across a variety of domains, a strong test of the domain-generality of these effects would be to compare performance with stimuli from different domains within a common task. Such a test is important for determining whether number-based modulations of motor responses are domain-specific (Chapman et al., 2014;Dotan & Dehaene, 2013;Song & Nakayama, 2008) or domain-general (Alonso-Diaz, Cantlon, & Piantadosi, 2015Santens et al., 2011). Surprisingly, to date, no studies have pitted domains against each other in equivalent reaching tasks to assess the effect of domain on dynamic motor behavior. In the literature on number processing, interactions between stimulus values and motor responses have only been tested with numerical stimuli alo...

show abstract

Motor adaptation is promoted by an incongruent Stroop task, but not by a congruent Stroop task

Kimura

Nakano

2021

Exp Brain Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Response trajectories capture the continuous dynamics of the size congruity effect

Cited by 41 publications

References 34 publications

Bottom-up and top-down attentional contributions to the size congruity effect

Bottom-up and top-down attentional contributions to the size congruity effect

What is in a reach? Domain-general spatial modulation of motor responses by number representations

Motor adaptation is promoted by an incongruent Stroop task, but not by a congruent Stroop task

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About