Effects of pitch on auditory number comparisons
Tóm tắt
Three experiments investigated interactions between auditory pitch and the numerical quantities represented by spoken English number words. In Experiment 1, participants heard a pair of sequential auditory numbers in the range zero to ten. They pressed a left-side or right-side key to indicate if the second number was lower or higher in numerical value. The vocal pitches of the two numbers either ascended or descended so that pitch change was congruent or incongruent with number change. The error rate was higher when pitch and number were incongruent relative to congruent trials. The distance effect on RT (i.e., slower responses for numerically near than far number pairs) occurred with pitch ascending but not descending. In Experiment 2, to determine if these effects depended on the left/right spatial mapping of responses, participants responded “yes” if the second number was higher and “no” if it was lower. Again, participants made more number comparison errors when number and pitch were incongruent, but there was no distance × pitch order effect. To pursue the latter, in Experiment 3, participants were tested with response buttons assigned left-smaller and right-larger (“normal” spatial mapping) or the reverse mapping. Participants who received normal mapping first presented a distance effect with pitch ascending but not descending as in Experiment 1, whereas participants who received reverse mapping first presented a distance effect with pitch descending but not ascending. We propose that the number and pitch dimensions of stimuli both activated spatial representations and that strategy shifts from quantity comparison to order processing were induced by spatial incongruities.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Bassok, M., Pedigo, S., & Oskarsson, A. (2008). Priming addition facts with semantic relations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Language, Memory and Cognition, 34, 343–352. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.34.2.343.
Campbell, J. I. D., & Sacher, S. (2012). Number comparison and semantic alignment. Psychological Research, 76, 119–128. doi:10.1007/s00426-011-0331-x.
Campbell, J. I. D., & Thompson, V. A. T. (2012). MorePower 6.0 for ANOVA with relational confidence intervals and Bayesian analysis. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 1255–1265. doi:10.3758/s13428-012-0186-0.
Cantlon, J. F., Platt, M. L., & Brannon, E. M. (2009). Beyond the number domain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(2), 83–91.
Cho, Y. S., & Proctor, R. W. (2003). Stimulus and response representations underlying orthogonal stimulus-response compatibility effects. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 10, 45–73.
Cohen Kadosh R., Brodsky, W., Levin, M., & Henik, A. (2008). Mental representation: what can pitch tell us about the distance effect? Cortex, 44, 470–477. doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2007.08.002.
Dehaene, S. (2003). The neural basis of the Weber–Fechner law: a logarithmic mental number line. Trends in Cognitive Neuroscience, 7, 145–147. doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00055-X.
Dehaene, S., Bossini, S., & Giraux, P. (1993). The mental representation of parity and number magnitude. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122, 371–396.
Fias, M., & Fischer, W. (2005). Spatial representation of number. In J. I. D. Campbell (Ed.), Handbook of Mathematical Cognition (pp. 43–55). New York: Psychology Press.
Fischer, M. H., Riello, M., Giordano, B. L., & Rusconi, E. (2013). Singing numbers… in cognitive space—A dual-task study of the link between pitch, space, and numbers. Topics in Cognitive Science, 5, 354–366. doi:10.1111/tops.12017.
Ishihara, M., Keller, P. E., Rossetti, Y., & Prinz, W. (2008). Horizontal spatial representations of time: Evidence for the STEARC effect. Cortex, 44, 454–461. doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2007.08.010.
Jarmasz, J., & Hollands, J. G. (2009). Confidence intervals in repeated-measures designs: the number of observations principle. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 124–138. doi:10.1037/a0014164.
Jou, J. (2003). Multiple number and letter comparison: directionality and accessibility in numeric and alphabetic memories. American Journal of Psychology, 116, 543–579. doi:10.2307/1423660.
Leth-Steensen, C., & Marley, A. A. J. (2000). A model of response-time effects in symbolic comparison. Psychological Review, 107, 62–100. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.107.1.62.
Lidji, P., Kolinsky, R., Lochy, A., & Morais, J. (2007). Spatial associations for musical stimuli: a piano in the head? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33, 1189–1207.
Masson, M. E. J., & Loftus, G. R. (2003). Using confidence intervals for graphically based data interpretation. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57, 203–220.
Moyer, R. S., & Landauer, T. K. (1967). Time required for judgments of numerical inequality. Nature, 215, 1519–1520. doi:10.1038/2151519a0.
Nishimura, A., & Yokosawa, K. (2009). Effects of laterality and pitch height of an auditory accessory stimulus on horizontal response selection: the Simon effect and the SMARC effect. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 16, 666–670.
Nuerk, H. C., Wood, G., & Willmes, K. (2005). The universal SNARC effect. Experimental Psychology, 53, 187–194. doi:10.1027/1618-3169.52.3.187.
Occelli, V., Spence, C., & Zampinia, M. (2009). Compatibility effects between sound frequency and tactile elevation. NeuroReport, 20, 793–797. doi:10.1097/WNR.0b013e32832b8069.
Opstal, F., Gevers, W., De Moor, W., & Verguts, T. (2008). Dissecting the symbolic distance effect: comparison and priming effects in numerical and nonnumerical orders. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 15, 419–425. doi:10.3758/PBR.15.2.419.
Rusconi, E., Kwan, B., Giordano, C., Umiltà, C., & Butterworth, B. (2006). Spatial representation of pitch height: the SMARC effect. Cognition, 99, 113–129. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2005.01.004.
Santiago, J., Lupáñez, J., Pérez, E., & Funes, M. J. (2007). Time (also) flies from left to right. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 14, 512–516. doi:10.3758/BF03194099.
Turconi, E., Campbell, J. I. D., & Seron, X. (2006). Numerical order and quantity processing in number comparison. Cognition, 98, 273–285. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2004.12.002.
Tzelgov, J., & Ganor-Stern, D. (2005). Automaticity in processing ordinal information. In J. I. D. Campbell (Ed.), Handbook of mathematical cognition (pp. 55–66). New York: Psychology Press.
Walsh, V. (2003). A theory of magnitude: common cortical metrics of time, space and quantity. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(11), 483–488.
Zorzi, M., Stoianov, I., & Umiltà, C. (2005). Computational modeling of numerical cognition. In J. I. D. Campbell (Ed.), Handbook of mathematical cognition (pp. 67–84). New York: Psychology Press.