What role do the magnitudes of the constituent digits play in three-digit number comparison (e.g., choosing the larger one of two numbers)? The present study addressed this question by examining compatibility effects between hundred and decade digits and between hundred and unit digits. For example, the number pair 372–845 is hundred–decade incompatible because the larger number contains the smaller decade digit, but hundred–unit compatible because the larger number contains the larger unit digit. We obtained significant effects of hundred–decade and hundred–unit compatibility on number comparison times. However, the effect of hundred–unit compatibility was largely restricted to the hundred–decade-compatible condition. These results suggest that place-value information, through decomposition, is automatically taken into account when multidigit numbers have to be compared. Implications of our findings for models of number processing are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BanksW. P.FujiiM.Kayra-StuartF. (1976). The locus of semantic congruity effects in comparative judgements.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance2, 435–447.
2.
BrysbaertM. (1995). Arabic number reading: On the nature of the numerical scale and the origin of phonological recoding.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General124, 434–452.
3.
DantzigT. (1954). Number, the language of science. (4). New York: Macmillan.
4.
DehaeneS. (2003). The neural basis of the Weber–Fechner law: A logarithmic mental number line.Trends in Cognitive Sciences7, 145–147.
5.
DehaeneS.DupouxE.MehlerJ. (1990). Is numerical comparison digital? Analogical and symbolic effects in two-digit number comparison.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance16, 626–641.
6.
DehaeneS.MehlerJ. (1992). Cross-linguistic regularities in the frequency of number words.Cognition43, 1–29.
7.
ForsterK. I.ForsterJ. C. (2003). DMDX: A Windows display program with millisecond accuracy.Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments and Computers35, 116–124.
8.
GallistelC. R.GelmanR. (1992). Preverbal and verbal counting and computation.Cognition44, 43–74.
9.
GrossbergS.RepinD. V. (2003). A neural model of how the brain represents and compares multi-digit numbers: Spatial and categorical processes.Neural Networks16, 1107–1140.
10.
HinrichsJ. V.YurkoD. S.HuJ. M. (1981). Two-digit number comparison: Use of place information.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance7, 890–901.
11.
KorvorstM.RoelofsA.LeveltW. J. M. (2006). Incrementality in naming and reading complex numerals: Evidence from eyetracking.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology59, 296–311.
12.
LorchR. F.MyersJ. L. (1990). Regression analyses of repeated measures data in cognitive research.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition16, 149–157.
13.
MoyerR. S.LandauerT. K. (1967). Time required for judgements of numerical inequality.Nature215, 1519–1520.
14.
NavonD. (1977). Forest before trees: The precedence of global features in visual perception.Cognitive Psychology9, 353–383.
15.
NuerkH.-C.WegerU.WillmesK. (2001). Decade breaks in the mental number line? Putting the tens and units back in different bins.Cognition82, B25–B33.
16.
NuerkH.-C.WegerU.WillmesK. (2002). A unit–decade compatibility effect in German number words.Current Psychology Letters7, 19–38.
17.
NuerkH.-C.WegerU.WillmesK. (2004). On the perceptual generality of the unit–decade compatibility effect.Experimental Psychology51, 72–79.
18.
NuerkH.-C.WegerU.WillmesK. (2005). Language effects in magnitude comparison: Small, but not irrelevant.Brain and Language92, 262–277.
19.
NuerkH.-C.WillmesK. (2005). On the magnitude representations of two-digit numbers.Psychology Science47, 52–72.
20.
PoltrockS. E.SchwartzD. R. (1984). Comparative judgments of multidigit numbers.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition10, 32–45.
21.
RatinckxE.BrysbaertM.FiasW. (2005). Naming two-digit Arabic numerals: Evidence from masked priming studies.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance31, 1150–1163.
22.
SekulerR.RubinE.ArmstrongR. (1971). Processing numerical information: A choice time analysis.Journal of Experimental Psychology90, 75–80.
23.
ThomasM.MorwitzV. (2005). Penny wise and pound foolish: The left-digit effect in price cognition.Journal of Consumer Research32, 54–64.
24.
Van den NoortgateW.OnghenaP. (2006). Analysing repeated measures data in cognitive research: A comment on regression coefficient analyses.European Journal of Cognitive Psychology18, 937–952.
