Occurrence stage of SNARC effect

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2024.01706

Abstract

Abstract:

The spatial-numerical association of response codes (SNARC) effect demonstrates that responding to small numbers with the left key is faster than responding with the right key, while the converse is true for large numbers. A long-standing debate has been whether the SNARC effect occurs only in the early stimulus-representation stage, only in the late response-selection stage or in both stages simultaneously. The study aims to manipulate two processing stages to investigate the effects of interference with the early stimulus-representation and late response-selection on the SNARC effect.

Combining numbers with arrows by the global and local paradigm, a compound stimulus—arrows made up with numbers—was designed as experimental materials. In experiment 1a, a within-subject experimental design with 2(Number magnitude: small, large) × 3 (Arrow direction: left, right, double left and right) × 2 (Response hand: left hand, right hand) was conducted. 40 subjects were asked to judge whether the number is larger or smaller than 5. In experiment 1b, a within-subject experimental design with 2(Number magnitude: small, large) × 3 (Arrow direction: up, down, double up and down) × 2 (Response hand: left hand, right hand) was employed. 40 subjects were asked to judge whether the number is larger or smaller than 5. The experimental design in experiment 2 is as the same as the experiment 1a, however, 40 subjects were asked to judge whether the arrow is left or right.

Results showed that horizontal interference with the spatial representation of numbers hindered the emergence of the SNARC effect (Experiment 1a), however, vertical interference with the spatial representation of numbers had no influence on the SNARC effect (Experiment 1b). Interference with the response selection stage impeded the emergence of the SNARC effect (Experiment 2).

According to the global precedence theory, global representation of horizontal arrow directions interfered with the spatial representation process of local numbers, thereby the SNARC effect in experiment 1a is disappeared. According to the mental number line theory, individuals mentally represent numbers based on a left-to-right mental number line. Thus, the interference from the global representation of vertical arrow directions doesn’t influence the SNARC effect in experiment 1b. When arrows made up with numbers are used in experiment 2 requiring participants to judge arrow directions, the numbers can be automatically processed and adequately spatially represented at an unconscious level. However, due to the arrow direction judgment task consumes cognitive resources or occupies the corresponding reaction position during the response-selection stage, the SNARC effect diminishes.

In summary, both the early stimulate-representation stage and the late response-selection stage play important roles in the occurrence of SNARC effect.

Key words: the global and local paradigm, SNARC effect, the early stimulate-representation stage, the late response-selection stage

WANG Chengcheng, ZHAO Yufei, SHENG Yingying, ZHAO Qingbai, XIAO Mengshi, HAN Lei. (2024). Occurrence stage of SNARC effect. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 56(12), 1706-1717.

Figures/Tables 14

Figure 1. Arrows composed of the digit 2 (left arrow, right arrow, and bidirectional arrow).

Table 1 The accuracy rate of each level in Experiment 1a (M ± SD; %)

Response hand	Left arrow		Right arrow		Bidirectional arrow
Response hand	Small number	Large number	Small number	Large number	Small number	Large number
Left hand	99.06 ± 2.00	98.75 ± 3.56	96.56 ± 4.89	96.25 ± 4.60	98.54 ± 2.01	99.17 ± 2.35
Right hand	95.73 ± 5.04	96.67 ± 3.68	98.75 ± 2.35	99.27 ± 1.60	98.23 ± 2.29	98.65 ± 3.32

Table 2 The reaction time of each level in Experiment 1a (M ± SD; %)

Response hand	Left arrow		Right arrow		Bidirectional arrow
Response hand	Small number	Large number	Small number	Large number	Small number	Large number
Left hand	490 ± 61	505 ± 67	540 ± 67	548 ± 64	525 ± 71	520 ± 67
Right hand	533 ± 68	543 ± 72	507 ± 66	501 ± 76	520 ± 75	516 ± 78

Figure 2. The interaction between arrow direction and response hand.
Note. Error bars represent standard error SE, *** p < 0.001

Figure 3. Interaction between number size and arrow direction.
Note. Error bars represent standard error SE, * p < 0.05

Figure 4. Arrows formed by the number 1 (up arrow, down arrow, and bidirectional arrow)

Table 3 The accuracy rate of each level in Experiment 1b (M ± SD; %)

Response hand	Up arrow		Down arrow		Bidirectional arrow
Response hand	Small number	Large number	Small number	Large number	Small number	Large number
Left hand	98.33 ± 2.80	98.13 ± 4.11	97.60 ± 3.25	97.81 ± 3.77	98.13 ± 2.98	98.23 ± 3.25
Right hand	97.08 ± 4.74	98.65 ± 3.18	98.13 ± 3.40	98.23 ± 2.97	97.19 ± 3.70	98.44 ± 2.62

Table 4 The reaction time of each level in Experiment 1b (M ± SD; %)

Response hand	Up arrow		Down arrow		Bidirectional arrow
Response hand	Small number	Large number	Small number	Large number	Small number	Large number
Left hand	489 ± 74	513 ± 87	492 ± 81	518 ± 85	489 ± 77	511 ± 81
Right hand	505 ± 80	486 ± 81	495 ± 80	477 ± 78	505 ± 75	483 ± 79

Figure 5. Interaction between numerical magnitude and response hand.
Note. Error bars represent standard error SE, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001

Figure 6. Arrows formed by special characters (left arrow and right arrow).

Table 5 The accuracy rate of each level in Experiment 2 (M ± SD; %)

Response Hand	Small numbers		Large numbers		Special characters
Response Hand	Left arrow	Right arrow	Left arrow	Right arrow	Left arrow	Right arrow
Left hand	99.25 ± 2.13	99.13 ± 2.75	99.00 ± 2.58	97.38 ± 3.92	98.50 ± 3.24	98.00 ± 2.95
Right hand	98.88 ± 2.11	98.25 ± 3.11	98.75 ± 2.72	99.25 ± 2.13	98.63 ± 2.99	99.13 ± 1.92

Table 6 The reaction time of each level in Experiment 2 (M ± SD; ms)

Response Hand	Small numbers		Large numbers		Special characters
Response Hand	Left arrow	Right arrow	Left arrow	Right arrow	Left arrow	Right arrow
Left hand	388 ± 47	452 ± 78	383 ± 45	443 ± 69	383 ± 44	447 ± 76
Right hand	437 ± 73	385 ± 48	433 ± 71	381 ± 51	440 ± 79	382 ± 50

Figure 7. Interaction between arrow direction and response hand.
Note. Error bars represent standard error SE, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001

Figure 8. Two-stage processing model (Yan et al., 2022).
Note. The solid line represents the processing path of task related information, the dashed line represents the processing path of task unrelated information, and the lightning arrow represents that any form of interference factor applied to any link in the SNARC effect generation chain will affect the generation of the effect. Figure 8-A represents a magnitude comparison task, where magnitude information is input as task related information and parity information is input as task unrelated information; Figure 8-B represents the parity determination task, where parity information is input as task related information and size information is input as task unrelated information.

References 48

[1]	Casarotti, M., Michielin, M., Zorzi, M. & Umiltà, C. (2007). Temporal order judgment reveals how number magnitude affects visuospatial attention. Cognition, 102(1), 101-117. pmid: 17046735
[2]	Craft, J. L., & Simon, J. R. (1970). Processing symbolic information from a visual display: Interference from an irrelevant directional cue. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 83, 415-420. pmid: 4098174
[3]	Dehaene, S., & Akhavein, R. (1995). Attention, automaticity, and levels of representation in number processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21(2), 314-326.
[4]	Dehaene, S., Bossini, S., & Giraus, P. (1993). The mental representation of parity and number magnitude. Journal of Experimental Psychology General, 122(3), 371-396.
[5]	Dehaene, S., Dupoux, E., & Mehler, J. (1990). Is numerical comparison digital? Analogical and symbolic effects in two-digit number comparison. Journal of experimental psychology: Human perception and performance, 16(3), 626-641.
[6]	Dodd, M. D., Stigchel, S. V. D., Leghari, M. A., Fung, G., & Kingstone, A. (2008). Attentional SNARC: there’s something special about numbers (let us count the ways). Cognition, 108(3), 810-818.
[7]	Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using GPower 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods*, 41(4), 1149-1160. doi: 10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149 pmid: 19897823
[8]	Fias, W., Lauwereyns, J., & Lammertyn, J. (2001). Irrelevant digits affect feature-based attention depending on the overlap of neural circuits. Cognitive Brain Research, 12(3), 415-423. pmid: 11689301
[9]	Fischer, M. H., Castel, A. D., Dodd, M. D., & Pratt, J. (2003). Perceiving numbers causes spatial shifts of attention. Nature Neuroscience, 6(6), 555-556. pmid: 12754517
[10]	Fischer, M. H., Warlop, N., Hill, R. L., & Fias, W. (2004). Oculomotor bias induced by number perception. Experimental Psychology, 51(2), 91-97. pmid: 15114901
[11]	Gevers, W., Caessens, B., & Fias, W. (2005). Towards a common processing architecture underlying Simon and SNARC effects. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 17(5), 659-673.
[12]	Gevers, W., Ratinckx, E., De Baene, W., & Fias, W. (2006). Further evidence that the SNARC effect is processed along a dual-route architecture. Experimental Psychology, 53(1), 58-68. pmid: 16610273
[13]	Gevers, W., Santens, S., Dhooge, E., Chen, Q., Bossche, L., & Fias, W. (2010). Verbal-spatial and visuospatial coding of number-space interactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 139(1), 180-190.
[14]	Gevers, W., Verguts, T., Reynvoet, B., Caessens, B., & Fias, W. (2006). Numbers and space: A computational model of the SNARC effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32(1), 32-44.
[15]	He, H., Yu, H. H., & Liu, J. P. (2015). Study on number processing with Global-Local aspects of compound visual stimulations. Psychological Exploration, 35(6), 499-501.
[16]	Hedge, A., & Marsh, N. W. A. (1975). The effect of irrelevant spatial correspondences on two-choice response-time. Act Psychologica, 39, 427-439.
[17]	Hu, C. P., Kong, X. Z., Wagenmakers, E.-J., Ly, A., & Peng, K. P. (2018). The Bayes factor and its implementation in JASP: A practical primer. Advances in Psychological Science, 26(6), 951-965.
[18]	Jeffreys, H. (1961). Theory of probability (3rd Ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
[19]	Kang, W., Yang, M., & Wang, L. (2013). SNARC Effect: Current Research, Theories and Suggestions. Journal of Psychological Science, 36(5), 1242-1248.
[20]	Keus, I. M., Jenks, K. M., & Schwarz, W. (2005). Psychophysiological evidence that the SNARC effect has its functional locus in a response selection stage. Cognitive Brain Research, 24(1), 48-56. pmid: 15922157
[21]	Keus, I. M., & Schwarz, W. (2005). Searching for the functional locus of the SNARC effect: Evidence for a response-related origin. Memory and Cognition, 33(4), 681-695.
[22]	Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., & Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility-a model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97(2), 253-270. doi: 10.1037/0033-295x.97.2.253 pmid: 2186425
[23]	Li, Q., Nan, W., Wang, K., & Liu, X. (2014). Independent processing of stimulus-stimulus and stimulus-response conficts. PLoS ONE, 9(2), e89249.
[24]	Liu, C., & Fu, X. L. (2004). The influence of attention on the effects of number magnitude in number comparison task. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 36(3), 307-314.
[25]	Lu, C. H., & Proctor, R. W. (1995). The influence of irrelevant location information on performance: A review of the Simon and spatial Stroop effects. Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2, 174-207.
[26]	Luo, T., Qiu, R. Y., Chen, B., & Fu, S. M. (2018). The stimulus representation of unconscious information and its temporal characteristics. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 50(5), 473-482.
[27]	Luo, C., & Proctor, R. W. (2021). Word-and arrow-based Simon effects emerge for eccentrically presented location words and arrows. Psychological Research, 85, 816-827.
[28]	Nan, W. Z., Yan, L. Z., Yang, G. C., Liu, X., & Fu, S. M. (2021). Two processing stages of the SNARC effect. Psychological Research, 86, 375-385. doi: 10.1007/s00426-021-01506-5 pmid: 33847782
[29]	Navon, D. (1977). Forest before trees: The precedence of global features in visual perception. Cognitive Psychology, 9(3), 353-383.
[30]	Salillas, E., Elyagoubi, R., & Semenza, C. (2008). Sensory and cognitive processes of shifts of spatial attention induced by numbers: An ERP study. Cortex, 44(4), 406-413. doi: 10.1016/j.cortex.2007.08.006 pmid: 18387572
[31]	Scerrati, E., Lugli, L., Nicoletti, R., & Umilta, C. (2017). Comparing Stroop-like and Simon effects on perceptual features. Scientific Reports, 7(1), 17815.
[32]	Schwarz, W., & Keus, I. M. (2004). Moving the eyes along the mental number line: Comparing SNARC effects with saccadic and number responses. Perception and Psychophysics, 66(4), 651-664. pmid: 15311664
[33]	Shi, X. L. (2010). Spatial representations of numbers in paradigm of Global-Local processing(Unpublished master’s thesis). Soochow University.
[34]	Simon, J. R., & Rudell, A. P. (1967). Auditory S-R compatibility: The effect of an irrelevant cue on information processing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 51(3), 300-304. pmid: 6045637
[35]	Simon, J. R. (1968). Effect of ear stimulated on reaction time and movement time. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 78, 344-346. pmid: 5722451
[36]	Simon, J. R., E Small, A. M., Jr. (1969). Processing auditory information: Interference from an irrelevant cue. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53, 433-435. pmid: 5366316
[37]	Sternberg, S. (1969). The discovery of processing stages: Extensions of Donders’ method. Acta Psychologica, 30, 276-315.
[38]	Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18(6), 643-662.
[39]	Tlauka, M. (2002). The processing of numbers in choice-reaction tasks. Australian Journal of Psychology, 54, 94-98.
[40]	Wagenmakers, E.-J., Love, J., Marsman, M., Jamil, T., Ly, A., Verhagen, J., … van Doorn, J. (2017). Bayesian inference for psychology. Part II: Example applications with JASP. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25, 58-76.
[41]	Wang, Q. Q., Shi, W. D., & Ye, J. (2018). The impact effect of the task switch on the SNARC effect. Chinese Journal of Applied Psychology, 24(3), 271-279.
[42]	Wang, Q. Q., Zhang, Q., Shi, W. D., Wang, Z. W., & Zhang, P. C. (2022). Online construction of spatial representation of numbers: Evidence from the SNARC effect in number processing in interferential situations. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 54(7), 761-771. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2022.00761
[43]	Wang, Y. H., Bergh, D., Aust, F., Ly, A., Wagenmakers, E.-J., & Hu, C. P. (2023). The Implementation of Bayesian ANOVA in JASP: A Practical Primer. Psychology: Techniques and Applications, 11(9), 528-541.
[44]	Wu, F., Gu, Q., Shi, Z. H., Gao, Z. F., & Shen, M. W. (2018). Striding over the “Classical Statistical Inference Trap”—Application of Bayes Factors in Psychological Studies. Chinese Journal of Applied Psychology, 24(3), 195-202.
[45]	Xu, X. D., & Liu, C. (2006). The spatial character of number. Advances in Psychological Science, 14(6), 851-858.
[46]	Xiang, X. R., Yan, L. Z., Fu, S. M., & Nan, W. Z. (2022). Processing stage flexibility of the SNARC effect: Task relevance or magnitude relevance? Frontiers in psychology, 13, 1022999.
[47]	Yan, L. Z., Yang, G. C., Nan, W. Z., Liu, X., & Fu, S. M. (2021). The SNARC effect occurs in the response-selection stage. Acta Psychologica, 215, 103292.
[48]	Yan, L. Z., Chen, Y. X., Liu, X., Fu, S. M., & Nan, W. Z. (2022). The flexibility of spatial-numerical associations and its internal mechanism. Advances in Psychological Science, 30(1), 51-64. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2022.00051