符号与非符号空间-数字反应编码联合效应的发展：言语能力、视空间能力和工作记忆的作用

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2024.00714

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 为了揭示符号和非符号空间-数字反应编码联合效应(spatial-numerical association of response codes, SNARC效应)各自的发展规律及二者关系, 实验1以36名6~7岁儿童、59名7~8岁儿童、69名8~9岁儿童和31名成人为被试, 测查符号和非符号奇偶判断任务, 发现符号SNARC效应在8~9岁儿童中才出现, 但非符号SNARC效应在6~7岁儿童中就已出现, 且跨年龄组(儿童和成人)的数据和针对儿童的追踪数据分析显示两种SNARC效应在一定年龄范围内可能并不会随着年龄的增长而发生变化。此外, 对于同时出现符号与非符号SNARC效应的8~9岁儿童和成人来说, 符号和非符号SNARC效应相关不显著。为进一步探讨两种SNARC效应是否有相似的认知机制, 实验2对137名8~9岁儿童进行为期半年的追踪, 测查其言语能力(语音意识、语音记忆和快速命名)、视空间能力(视知觉和心理旋转)、工作记忆(言语工作记忆和视空间工作记忆)及符号和非符号SNARC效应, 结果显示: 言语能力和言语工作记忆对符号SNARC效应预测作用显著, 视空间能力和视空间工作记忆对非符号SNARC效应预测显著。这表明两种SNARC效应具有不同的认知基础。研究结果支持了符号与非符号SNARC效应的分离假说, 并拓展了双编码理论。

关键词: 符号SNARC效应, 非符号SNARC效应, 认知机制, 发展特点

Abstract: The spatial-numerical association of response codes (SNARC) effect is a phenomenon in which the leftward response is faster than the rightward response for smaller numbers, whereas for larger numbers, the rightward response is faster than the leftward response. Although the existence of the SNARC effect has been examined in many studies, most of these studies focused on the symbolic SNARC effect and neglected to explore the non-symbolic SNARC effect. Little is known about how symbolic and non-symbolic SNARC effects develop and whether there are differences in the cognitive mechanisms involved in these two effects. The present study aimed to simultaneously investigate the developmental characteristics and cognitive mechanisms of symbolic and non-symbolic SNARC effects to contribute to the understanding of number processing.
In Experiment 1, a large-sample cross-sectional method was used with four age groups to explore the developmental characteristics of symbolic and non-symbolic SNARC effects. Thirty-six 6- to 7-year-old children, 59 7- to 8-year-old children, 69 8- to 9-year-old children and 31 adults performed the symbolic and non-symbolic parity judgement task. Experiment 2 was based on dual coding theory and the findings from Experiment 1. In this experiment, 137 children aged 8 to 9 years, the key age at which symbolic and non-symbolic SNARC effects are observed, were selected as participants and followed longitudinally for six months to explore whether the two SNARC effects had similar cognitive mechanisms. Phonological ability, visuospatial ability, visual working memory and phonological working memory were measured at T1. At T2 (after 6 months), the participants' symbolic and non-symbolic SNARC effects were measured. The symbolic and non-symbolic SNARC effects at T1 were controlled.
The findings of this study were as follows. (1) The non-symbolic SNARC effect emerged in 6- to 7-year-old children, while the symbolic SNARC effect emerged in 8- to 9-year-old children. Thus, the non-symbolic SNARC effect emerged earlier than the symbolic SNARC effect. (2) There were no significant age differences in the symbolic or non-symbolic SNARC effects. (3) For 8- to 9-year-old children and adults with both symbolic SNARC effects and non-symbolic SNARC effects, these two effects were not significantly correlated. (4) Phonological ability and phonological working memory at T1 significantly predicted the development of the symbolic SNARC effect at T2 but not the development of the non-symbolic SNARC effect at T2. Visuospatial ability and visual working memory at T1 significantly predicted the development of the non-symbolic SNARC effect at T2 but not the development of the symbolic SNARC effect.
In conclusion, 8 to 9 years is the critical age at which symbolic and non-symbolic SNARC effects emerge simultaneously, and there is no significant difference in the size of the SNARC effects according to age. Furthermore, phonological ability and phonological working memory contribute to the symbolic SNARC effect, whereas visuospatial ability and visual working memory contribute to the non-symbolic SNARC effect. These findings suggest a difference in the cognitive mechanisms of these two SNARC effects. These findings support the hypothesis of the separation of symbolic and non-symbolic SNARC effects and extend dual coding theory.

Key words: symbolic SNARC effect, non-symbolic SNARC effect, cognitive mechanism, developmental characteristic

蒋家丽, 戚玥, 雷秀雅, 卢骊霏, 于晓. (2024). 符号与非符号空间-数字反应编码联合效应的发展：言语能力、视空间能力和工作记忆的作用. 心理学报, 56(6), 714-730.

JIANG Jiali, QI Yue, LEI Xiuya, LU Lifei, YU Xiao. (2024). The development of symbolic and non-symbolic SNARC effects: The roles of phonological abilities, visuospatial abilities and working memory. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 56(6), 714-730.

参考文献

[1] Aulet, L. S., & Lourenco, S. F. (2018). The developing mental number line: Does its directionality relate to 5-to 7-year-old children’s mathematical abilities? Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article 1142.
[2] Bachot J., Gevers W., Fias W., & Roeyers H. (2005). Number sense in children with visuospatial disabilities: Orientation of the mental number line.Psychology Science, 47(1), 172-183.
[3] Baddeley, A. (2003). Working memory and language: An overview.Journal of Communication Disorders, 36(3), 189-208.
[4] Berch D. B., Foley E. J., Hill R. J., & Ryan P. M. (1999). Extracting parity and magnitude from Arabic numerals: Developmental changes in number processing and mental representation.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 74(4), 286-308.
[5] Bulf H., de Hevia M. D., & Macchi Cassia V. (2016). Small on the left, large on the right: numbers orient visual attention onto space in preverbal infants.Developmental Science, 19(3), 394-401.
[6] Chan, W. W. L., & Wong, T. T. (2016). The underlying number-space mapping among kindergarteners and its relation with early numerical abilities.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 148, 35-50.
[7] Chen Y., Wang J., Kirk R. M., Pethtel O. L., & Kiefner A. E. (2014). Age differences in adaptive decision making: The role of numeracy.Educational Gerontology, 40(11), 825-833.
[8] Cheng, C., & Kibbe, M. M. (2023). Is nonsymbolic arithmetic truly “arithmetic”? Examining the computational capacity of the approximate number system in young children.Cognitive Science, 47(6), e13299.
[9] Cipora K., Haman M., Domahs F., & Nuerk H. (2020). Editorial: On the development of space-number relations: linguistic and cognitive determinants, influences, and associations. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 182.
[10] Cutini S., Aleotti S., Di Bono M. G., & Priftis K. (2019). Order versus chaos: The impact of structure on number-space associations.Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 81(6), 1781-1788.
[11] de Hevia M. D., Veggiotti L., Streri A., & Bonn C. D. (2017). At birth, humans associate “few” with left and “many” with right.Current Biology, 27(24), 3879-3884.
[12] Dehaene S., Bossini S., & Giraux P. (1993). The mental representation of parity and number magnitude.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122(3), 371-396.
[13] 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.
[14] Deng Z., Chen Y., Zhang M., Li Y., & Zhu X. (2018). The association of number and space under different tasks: Insight from a process perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article 957.
[15] Deng Z. J., Chen Y. H., Zhu X. S., & Li Y. J. (2017). The effect of working memory load on the SNARC effect: Maybe tasks have a word to say.Memory & Cognition, 45(3), 428-441.
[16] Di Giorgio E., Lunghi M., Rugani R., Regolin L., Dalla Barba B., Vallortigara G., & Simion F. (2019). A mental number line in human newborns.Developmental Science, 22(6), e12801.
[17] Dollman, J., & Levine, W. H. (2016). Rapid communication the mental number line dominates alternative, explicit coding of number magnitude.The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69(3), 403-409.
[18] Ebersbach M., Luwel K., & Verschaffel L. (2014). Further evidence for a spatial-numerical association in children before formal schooling.Experimental Psychology, 61(4), 323-329.
[19] Escobar J., Porflitt F., & Ceric F. (2021). Evaluating the rapid automatized naming and arithmetical fluency relationship in Chilean first grade students.Educational Psychology (Dorchester-on-Thames), 41(6), 730-747.
[20] Fias W., Brysbaert M., Geypens F., & Ydewalle G. D. (1996). The importance of magnitude information in numerical processing: Evidence from the SNARC effect.Mathematical Cognition, 2(1), 95-110.
[21] Fias W.,& Fischer, M. H. (2005). Spatial representation of numbers. In J. I. D. Campbell (Ed.), Handbook of mathematical cognition (pp. 43-54). New York: Psychology Press.
[22] Fischer, M. H., & Shaki, S. (2016). Measuring spatial-numerical associations: Evidence for a purely conceptual link.Psychological Research, 80(1), 109-112.
[23] Formoso J., Barreyro J. P., Jacubovich S., & Injoque-Ricle I. (2017). Possible associations between subitizing, estimation and visuospatial working memory (VSWM) in children.The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 20, e27.
[24] Gardner, M. F. (1996). Test of visual-perceptual skills (non-motor) revised. New York: Psychological and Educational Publications.
[25] Gazes R. P., Diamond R. F. L., Hope J. M., Caillaud D., Stoinski T. S., & Hampton R. R. (2017). Spatial representation of magnitude in gorillas and orangutans.Cognition, 168, 312-319.
[26] Gebuis T., Cohen Kadosh R., De Haan E., & Henik A. (2009). Automatic quantity processing in 5-year olds and adults.Cognitive Processing, 10(2), 133-142.
[27] 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.
[28] Gevers W., Lammertyn J., Notebaert W., Verguts T., & Fias W. (2006). Automatic response activation of implicit spatial information: Evidence from the SNARC effect.Acta Psychologica, 122(3), 221-233.
[29] Gevers W., Santens S., Dhooge E., Chen Q., Van den Bossche L., Fias W., & Verguts T. (2010). Verbal-spatial and visuospatial coding of number-space interactions.Journal of Experimental Psychology General, 139(1), 180-190.
[30] Gibson, L. C., & Maurer, D. (2016). Development of SNARC and distance effects and their relation to mathematical and visuospatial abilities.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 150, 301-313.
[31] Girelli L., Lucangeli D., & Butterworth B. (2000). The development of automaticity in accessing number magnitude.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 76(2), 104-122.
[32] He X., Guo P., Li S., Shen X., & Zhou X. (2021). Non-symbolic and symbolic number lines are dissociated.Cognitive Processing, 22(3), 475-486.
[33] Herrera, A. Macizo, P., & Semenza, C. (2008). The role of working memory in the association between number magnitude and space.Acta Psychologica, 128(2), 225-237.
[34] Hoffmann D., Pigat D., & Schiltz C. (2014). The impact of inhibition capacities and age on number-space associations.Cognitive Processing, 15(3), 329-342.
[35] Imbo I., de Brauwer J., Fias W., & Gevers W. (2012). The development of the SNARC effect: Evidence for early verbal coding.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 111(4), 671-680.
[36] Jonas C. N., Spiller M. J., Jansari A., & Ward J. (2014). Comparing implicit and synaesthetic number-space associations: Visuospatial and verbal spatial-numerical associations of response codes.The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67(7), 1262-1273.
[37] Karbach J., Strobach T., & Schubert T. (2015). Adaptive working-memory training benefits reading, but not mathematics in middle childhood.Child Neuropsychology, 21(3), 285-301.
[38] Kirby J. R., Parrila R. K., & Pfeiffer S. L. (2003). Naming speed and phonological awareness as predictors of reading development.Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(3), 453-464.
[39] Knoch D., Brugger P., & Regard M. (2004). Suppressing versus releasing a habit: Frequency-dependent effects of prefrontal transcranial magnetic stimulation.Cerebral Cortex, 15(7), 885-887.
[40] Krajewski, K., & Schneider, W. (2009). Exploring the impact of phonological awareness, visual-spatial working memory, and preschool quantity-number competencies on mathematics achievement in elementary school: Findings from a 3-year longitudinal study.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 103(4), 516-531.
[41] Lourenco, S. F., & Longo, M. R. (2010). General magnitude representation in human infants. Psychological Science, 21(6), 873-881.
[42] Nemeh F., Humberstone J., Yates M. J., & Reeve R. A. (2018). Non-symbolic magnitudes are represented spatially: Evidence from a non-symbolic SNARC task.PLoS ONE, 13(8), e203019.
[43] Noël M. P., Seron X., & Trovarelli F. (2003). Working memory as a predictor of addition skills and addition strategies in children.Current Psychology of Cognition, 22(1), 3-24.
[44] Nuerk H., Wood G., & Willmes K. (2005). The universal SNARC effect: The association between number magnitude and space is amodal.Experimental Psychology, 52(3), 187-194.
[45] Núñez-Peña M. I., Colomé À., & González-Gómez B. (2021). The spatial-numerical association of response codes (SNARC) effect in highly math-anxious individuals: An ERP study.Biological Psychology, 161, 108062.
[46] Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. New York: Oxford University Press.
[47] Pan Y., Han X., Mei G., Bai X., & Chen Y. (2019). Development of number-space associations: SNARC effects and spatial attention in 7-to 11-year-olds. PLoS ONE, 14(3), e212204.
[48] Passolunghi, M. C., & Costa, H. M. (2016). Working memory and early numeracy training in preschool children.Child Neuropsychology, 22(1), 81-98.
[49] Patro, K., & Haman, M. (2012). The spatial-numerical congruity effect in preschoolers. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 111(3), 534-542.
[50] Peters L., Polspoel B., de Beeck H. O., & De Smedt B. (2016). Brain activity during arithmetic in symbolic and non-symbolic formats in 9-12 year old children.Neuropsychologia, 86, 19-28.
[51] Proctor, R. W., & Cho, Y. S. (2006). Polarity correspondence: A general principle for performance of speeded binary classification tasks.Psychological Bulletin, 132(3), 416-442.
[52] Prpic V., Basamh Y. A., Goodridge C. M., Agostini T., & Murgia M. (2023). Contrasting symbolic and non-symbolic numerical representations in a joint classification task. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 30, 1422-1430.
[53] Prpic V., Fumarola A., De Tommaso M., Luccio R., Murgia M., & Agostini T. (2016). Separate mechanisms for magnitude and order processing in the spatial-numerical association of response codes (SNARC) effect: The strange case of musical note values. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 42(8), 1241-1251.
[54] Prpic V., Soranzo A., Santoro I., Fantoni C., Galmonte A., Agostini T., & Murgia M. (2020). SNARC-like compatibility effects for physical and phenomenal magnitudes: A study on visual illusions.Psychological Research, 84(4), 950-965.
[55] Sasanguie D., De Smedt B., & Reynvoet B. (2017). Evidence for distinct magnitude systems for symbolic and non-symbolic number.Psychological Research, 81(1), 231-242.
[56] Shepard, R. N., & Metzler, J. (1971). Mental rotation of three-dimensional objects.Science, 171(3972), 701-703.
[57] Toomarian, E. Y., & Hubbard, E. M. (2018). On the genesis of spatial-numerical associations: Evolutionary and cultural factors co-construct the mental number line.Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 90, 184-199.
[58] Tosto M. G., Hanscombe K. B., Haworth C. M., Davis O. S., Petrill S. A., Dale P. S., … Kovas Y. (2014). Why do spatial abilities predict mathematical performance?Developmental Science, 17(3), 462-470.
[59] Tzelgov J., Meyer J., & Henik A. (1992). Automatic and intentional processing of numerical information.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18(1), 166-179.
[60] van Dijck, J. P., & Fias, W. (2011). A working memory account for spatial-numerical associations. Cognition, 119(l), 114-119.
[61] van Galen, M. S., & Reitsma, P. (2008). Developing access to number magnitude: A study of the SNARC effect in 7-to 9-year-olds.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 101(2), 99-113.
[62] Van Garderen, D. (2006). Spatial visualization, visual imagery, and mathematical problem solving of students with varying abilities.Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(6), 496-506.
[63] Viarouge A., Hubbard E. M., & McCandliss B. D. (2014). The cognitive mechanisms of the SNARC effect: An individual differences approach.PLoS One, 9(4), e95756.
[64] Wagner, R. K., & Torgesen, J. K. (1987). The nature of phonological processing and its causal role in the acquisition of reading skills.Psychological Bulletin, 101(2), 192-212.
[65] Wang Q. Q., Zhang Q., Shi W. D., Wang Z. W., & Zhang Z. P. (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.
[王强强, 张琦, 石文典, 王志伟, 章鹏程. (2022). 数字空间表征的在线建构: 来自干扰情境中数字SNARC效应的证据.心理学报, 54(7), 761-771.]
[66] White S. L. J., Dénes S., & Fruzsina S. (2012). Symbolic number: The integration of magnitude and spatial representations in children aged 6 to 8 years. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, Article 392.
[67] Wood G., Willmes K., Nuerk H., & Fischer M. H. (2008). On the cognitive link between space and number: A meta-analysis of the SNARC effect. Psychology Science Quarterly, 50(4), 489-525.
[68] Wright I., Waterman M., Prescott H., & Murdoch-Eaton D. (2003). A new Stroop-like measure of inhibitory function development: typical developmental trends.Journal of Child Psychology Psychiatry, 44(4), 561-575.
[69] Wu H., Yang X., Geng L., Zhu X., & Chen Y. (2020). How do working memory and inhibition contribute to the SNARC effect in Chinese school-aged children?Cognitive Development, 56, 100959.
[70] Xu X., Chen C., Pan M., & Li N. (2013). Development of numerical estimation in Chinese preschool children.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 116(2), 351-366.
[71] 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.
[颜丽珠, 陈妍秀, 刘勋, 傅世敏, 南威治. (2022). 数字空间联结的灵活性及其内在机制.心理科学进展, 30(1), 1-14.]
[72] Yang T., Chen C., Zhou X., Xu J., Dong Q., & Chen C. (2014). Development of spatial representation of numbers: A study of the SNARC effect in Chinese children.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 117, 1-11.
[73] Yang X., Huo S., & Zhang X. (2021). Visual-spatial skills contribute to Chinese reading and arithmetic for different reasons: A three-wave longitudinal study. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 208, Article 105142.
[74] Yang, X., & McBride, C. (2020). How do phonological processing abilities contribute to early Chinese reading and mathematics? Educational Psychology (Dorchester-on-Thames), 40(7), 893-911.
[75] Yang X., Peng P., & Meng X. (2019). How do metalinguistic awareness, working memory, reasoning, and inhibition contribute to Chinese character reading of kindergarten children?Infant and Child Development, 28(3), e2122.
[76] Yang, X., & Yu, X. (2021). The relationship between mental rotation and arithmetic: do number line estimation, working memory, or place-value concept matter?British Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(3), 793-810.
[77] Yang X., Zhang X., Huo S., & Zhang Y. (2020). Differential contributions of cognitive precursors to symbolic versus non-symbolic numeracy in young Chinese children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 53, 208-216.
[78] Zhang, X., & Lin, D. (2015). Pathways to arithmetic: The role of visual-spatial and language skills in written arithmetic, arithmetic word problems, and nonsymbolic arithmetic.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 41, 188-197.
[79] Zhang Y., Chen C., Liu H., Cui J., & Zhou X. (2016). Both non-symbolic and symbolic quantity processing are important for arithmetical computation but not for mathematical reasoning.Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 28(7), 807-824.
[80] Zhou X., Chen Y., Chen C., Jiang T., Zhang H., & Dong Q. (2007). Chinese kindergartners' automatic processing of numerical magnitude in Stroop-like tasks.Memory & Cognition, 35(3), 464-470.
[81] Zhou X., Hu Y., Yuan L., Gu T., & Li D. (2020). Visual form perception predicts 3-year longitudinal development of mathematical achievement.Cognitive Processing. 21(4), 521-532.