Simple arithmetic: evidence of an inhibitory mechanism to select arithmetic facts

Abstract

In two experiments we evaluated the coactivation of arithmetic facts and the possible inhibitory mechanism used to select the correct one. To this end, we introduced an adapted version of the negative priming paradigm in which participants received additions and they decided whether they were correct or not. When the addition was incorrect but the result was that of multiplying the operands (e.g., 2 + 4 = 8), participants took more time to respond relative to control additions with unrelated results. This finding corroborated that participants coactivated arithmetic facts of multiplications even when they were irrelevant to perform the task. Moreover, the participants were slower to respond to an addition whose result was that of multiplying the operands of the previous trial (e.g., 2 + 6 = 8). These results support the existence of an inhibitory mechanism involved in the selection of arithmetic facts.

Activation and selection of arithmetic facts: The role of numerical format

“…Again, this effect was not found with problems presented in the word format. The results obtained with problems presented in the digit format replicate the data reported by Megías et al (2014) with the same paradigm and surface form of the problems. Hence, the effects found with the adaptation of the negative priming paradigm seem to be a reliable phenomenon.…”

“…Evidence for the coactivation of arithmetic facts with the adaptation of the negative priming paradigm was reported in Megías et al (2014). Since the results reported by the authors with problems in the digit format were innovative, we wanted to replicate them here.…”

“…In addition, recent evidence suggests that individuals apply this inhibitory mechanism in a continuous manner when competition between arithmetic facts takes place during the course of an arithmetic task (Megías, Macizo, & Herrera, 2014). Megías et al designed an adaptation of the negative priming paradigm (Macizo, Bajo, & Matín, 2010;Tipper & Driver, 1988) in which additions were presented and participants decided whether they were correct or incorrect.…”

“…The current study Given that previous research has provided evidence of the role of surface format on the processing of numerical information and the resolution of arithmetic facts (Campbell, 1994;Campbell & Alberts, 2009;Lemaire & Reder, 1999;Noël et al, 1997;Schunn & Reder, 2001;Siegler & Shipley, 1995), the main goal of the current study was to evaluate whether the coactivation of arithmetic facts and the inhibitory mechanism that seems to be responsible to select the correct answer (Campbell & Dowd, 2012;Campbell & Thompson, 2012;Megías et al, 2014) depend on the format of the problem.…”

“…This interaction would support the idea that encoding processes (the type of format in which the problems are presented) determine a central stage of processing (the spread of activation in the associative network represented in longterm memory). To evaluate whether the format of problems determined the coactivation and selection of arithmetic facts, we used the paradigm developed by Megías et al (2014) and extended it to the case of arithmetic equations presented with words. The participants verified the correctness of additions presented in the digit format (i.e., 2 + 6 = 8) and the word format (i.e., two + six = eight).…”