Number magnitude and number parity representation are fundamental number representations. However, the representation of parity is much less understood than that of magnitude: Therefore, we investigated it by examining the (new) Linguistic Markedness of Response Codes (MARC) effect: Responses are facilitated if stimuli and response codes both have the same (congruent) linguistic markedness (even–right, odd–left) while incongruent conditions (even–left, odd–right) lead to interference. We examined systematically the MARC (for parity) and the Spatial Numerical Association of Response Codes (SNARC; for magnitude) effect for different number notations (positive Arabic, negative Arabic, number words) and with different methods of data analysis. In a parity judgement task, the SNARCeffect indicating a magnitude representation was replicated for all notations except for negative numerals. The MARCeffect was found for number words in all analyses, but less consistently for the other notations. In contrast, a correlational analysis of the reaction time (RT) data, as suggested by Sternberg (1969) using a nonmetric multi–dimensional scaling (MDS) procedure, produced a clear association of parity and response code for all notations (MARCeffect), but little evidence of the SNARCeffect. We discuss the extent to which these notation–specific MARC and SNARC effects constrain current models of number processing and elaborate on the possible functional locus of the MARC effect.
References
1.
ArmstrongS.L., GleitmanL. R., & GleitmanH. (1983). What some concepts might not be.Cognition, 13, 263–308.
2.
AshcraftM. H. (1992). Cognitive arithmetic: A review of data and theory.Cognition, 44, 75–106.
BrysbaertM. (1995). Arabic number reading: On the nature of the numerical scale and the origin of phonological recoding.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 434–52.
8.
BuckleyP. B., & GillmanC. B. (1974). Comparisons of digits and dot patterns.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 103, 1131–1136.
9.
ButterworthB. (1999). The mathematical brain.London: Macmillan.
10.
CampbellJ. I. D. (1992). In defense of the encoding-complex approach: Reply to McCloskey, Macaruso, & Whetstone. In CampbellJ. I. D. (Ed.), The nature and origins of mathematical skills (pp. 539–556). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
11.
CampbellJ. I. D. (1994). Architectures for numerical cognition.Cognition, 53, 1–44.
12.
CampbellJ. I. D. (1998). Linguistic influences in cognitive arithmetic: Comment on Noel, Fias, and Brysbaert (1997).Cognition, 67, 353–364.
13.
CampbellJ. I. D. (1999). The surface form × problem size interaction in cognitive arithmetic: Evidence against an encoding locus.Cognition, 70, B25–B33
14.
CampbellJ. I. D., & ClarkJ. M. (1988). An encoding-complex view of cognitive number processing: Comment on McCloskey, Sokol, and Goodman (1986).Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 117, 204–214.
15.
CampbellJ. I. D., & ClarkJ. M. (1992). Cognitive number processing: An encoding complex perspective. In CampbellJ. I. D. (Ed.), The nature and origins of mathematical skills (pp. 457–491). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
16.
CipolottiL., & ButterworthB. (1995). Toward a multiroute model of number processing: Impaired number transcoding with preserved calculation skills.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 375–390.
17.
ClarkJ. M., & CampbellJ. I. D. (1991). Integrated versus modular theories of number skills and acalculia.Brain and Cognition, 17, 204–239.
18.
CohenL., & DehaeneS. (2000). Calculating without reading: Unsuspected residual abilities in pure alexia.Cognitive Neuropsychology, 17, 563–583.
19.
DehaeneS. (1989). The psychophysics of numerical comparison: A reexamination of apparently incompatible data.Perception & Psychophysics, 45, 557–66.
20.
DehaeneS. (1992). The varieties of numerical abilities.Cognition, 44, 1–42.
21.
DehaeneS., & AkhaveinR. (1995). Attention, automaticity, and levels of representation in number processing.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 2, 314–326.
22.
DehaeneS., BossiniS., & GirauxP. (1993). The mental representation of parity and number magnitude.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122, 371–396.
23.
DehaeneS., & CohenL. (1995). Towards an anatomical and functional model of number processing.Mathematical Cognition, 1, 83–120.
24.
DehaeneS., & CohenL. (1997). Cerebral pathways for calculation: Double dissociation between rote verbal and quantitative knowledge of arithmetic.Cortex, 33, 219–250.
25.
DehaeneS., DupouxE., & MehlerJ. (1990). Is numerical comparison digital? Analogical and symbolic effects in two-digit number comparison.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 16, 626–641.
26.
FiasW. (2001). Two routes for the processing of verbal numbers: Evidence from the SNARC effect.Psychological Research, 12, 415–23.
27.
FiasW., BrysbaertM., GeypensF., & d'YdewalleG. (1996). The importance of magnitude information in numerical processing: Evidence from the SNARC-effect.Mathematical Cognition, 2, 95–110.
28.
FiasW., LauwereynsJ., & LammertynJ. (2001). Irrelevant digits affect feature-based attention depending on the overlap of neural circuits.Cognitive Brain Research, 12, 415–423.
29.
FoltzG. S., PoltrockS. E., & PottsG. R. (1984). Mental comparison of size and magnitude: Size congruity effects.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10, 442–453.
30.
GuttmanL. (1968). A general nonmetric technique for finding the smallest coordinate space for a configuration of points.Psychometrika, 33, 469–506.
31.
HinesT. M. (1990). An odd effect: Lengthened reaction times for judgments about odd digits.Memory and Cognition, 18, 40–46.
32.
HinrichsJ. V., YurkoD. S., & HuJ.-M. (1981). Two-digit number comparison: Use of place information.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 7, 890–901.
33.
LeveltW.J. M., RoelofsA., & MeyerA. S. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production.Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 1–75.
34.
LingoesJ. C. (1973). The Guttman-Lingoes nonmetric program series.Ann Arbor, MI: Mathesis Press.
35.
LorchR. F.Jr., & MyersJ. L. (1990). Regression analyses of repeated measures data in cognition research.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 149–157.
36.
LyonsJ. (1969). Semantics.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
37.
McCloskeyM. (1992). Cognitive mechanisms in numerical processing: evidence from acquired dyscalculia.Cognition, 44, 107–57.
38.
McCloskeyM., MacarusoP., & WhetstoneT. (1992). The functional architecture of numerical processing mechanisms: Defending the modular model. In CampbellJ. I. D. (Ed.), The nature and origins of mathematical skills (pp. 493–537). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
39.
MillerK. F., & GelmanR. (1983). The child's representation of number: A multidimensional scaling analysis.Child Development, 54, 1470–1479.
40.
MillerK. F., & StiglerJ. W. (1987). Counting in Chinese: Cultural variation in a basic cognitive skill.Cognitive Development, 2, 279–305.
41.
MillerK. F., & StiglerJ. W. (1991). Meanings of skill: Effects of abacus expertise on number representation.Cognition and Instruction, 8, 29–67.
42.
MoyerR. S., & LandauerT. K. (1967). Time required for judgments of numerical inequality.Nature, 215, 1519–1520.
43.
NuerkH.C., WegerU., & WillmesK. (2002) Decade breaks in the mental number line? Putting the tens and units back in different bins.Cognition, 82, B25–33.
44.
NuerkH.C., WegerU., & WillmesK. (in press). A unit-decade compatibility effect in German number word.Current Psychology Letters: Behavior, Brain, & Cognition, 7, 19–38.
45.
RestleF. (1970). Speed of adding and comparing numbers.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 83, 32–45.
46.
ReynvoetB., & BrysbaertM. (1999). Single-digit and two-digit Arabic numerals address the same semantic number line.Cognition, 72, 191–201.
47.
ShepardR. N., KilpatricD. W., & CunninghamP. (1975). The internal representation of numbers.Cognitive Psychology, 7, 82–138.
48.
ShermanM. A. (1973). Bound to be easier? The negative prefix and sentence comprehension.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12, 76–84.
49.
ShermanM. A. (1976). Adjectival negation and the comprehension of multiply negated sentences.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 15, 143–157.
50.
SokolS. M., Goodman-SchulmanR., & McCloskeyM. (1989). In defense of a modular architecture for the number-processing system: Reply to Campbell and Clark.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118, 105–110.
51.
SternbergS. (1969). The discovery of processing stages: Extension of Donders’ method.Acta Psychologica, 30, 276–315.
52.
SternbergS. (1998). Discovering mental processing stages: The method of additive factors. In ScarboroughD., & SternbergS. (Eds.), An invitation to cognitive science: Methods, models, and conceptual issues (2nd ed., pp. 703–863). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
53.
TzelgovJ., MeyerJ., & HenikA. (1992). Automatic and intentional processing of numerical information.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 166–179.
54.
WillmesK., & IversenW. (1995 April). On the Internal Representation of Number Parity. Paper presented at the Spring Annual Meeting of the British Neuropsychological Society, London.
55.
ZimmerK. (1964). Affixed negation in English and other languages: An investigation of restricted productivity.Word, 20, 2, Monograph No. 5.
