The operational momentum effect (OM) indicates an association of mental addition with a rightward spatial bias, whereas subtraction is associated with a leftward bias. To evaluate the assumed attentional origin of the OM effect, we evaluated not only participants’ relative estimation error in a task requiring them to locate addition and subtraction results on a given number line but also their eye-fixation behaviour. Furthermore, to investigate the situatedness of spatial–numerical associations, the orientation of the number line (left-to-right vs. right-to left) was manipulated. OM biases in participants’ explicit number line estimations and more implicit eye-fixation behaviour are integrated into a two-process hypothesis of the OM effect suggesting a first rough spatial anticipation followed by an evaluation/correction process. This account not only is capable of accounting for the results observed for participants’ relative estimation error but is also corroborated by the eye-fixation results. Importantly, the fact that all effects were found independent of the orientation of the number line indicates that spatial–numerical associations such as the OM effect may not be hard-wired associations of spatial and numerical representations but rather reflect influences of situatedness on numerical cognition.
AstafievS. V., ShulmanG. L., StanleyC. M., SnyderA. Z., Van EssenD. C., & CorbettaM. (2003). Functional organization of human intraparietal and frontal cortex for attending, looking, and pointing. Journal of Neuroscience, 23(11), 4689–4699.
BuetiD., & WalshV. (2009). The parietal cortex and the representation of time, space, number and other magnitudes. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society London B: Biological Science, 364, 1831–1840.
4.
DehaeneS., & ChangeuxJ. P. (1993). Development of elementary numerical abilities: A neuronal model. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 5, 390–407.
5.
Fischer, M. H. (2003). Spatial representations in number processing – Evidence from a pointing task. Visual Cognition, 10(4), 493–508.
6.
FischerM. H. (2006). The future for SNARC could be stark. Cortex, 42, 1066–1068.
7.
FischerM. H. (2012). A hierarchical view of grounded, embodied, and situated numerical cognition. Cognitive Processing, 13, S161–S164.
8.
FischerM. H., & BruggerP. (2011). When digits help digits: Spatial-numerical associations point to finger counting as prime example of embodied cognition. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 260.
9.
FischerM. H., CastelA. D., DoddM. D., & PrattJ. (2003). Perceiving numbers causes spatial shifts of attention. Nature Neuroscience, 6, 555–556.
10.
FischerM. H., ShakiS., & CruiseA. (2009). It takes just one word to quash a SNARC. Experimental Psychology, 56, 361–366.
11.
FischerM. H., WarlopN., HillR. L., & FiasW. (2004). Oculomotor bias induced by number perception. Experimental Psychology, 51, 91–97.
12.
FreydJ. J., & FinkeR. A. (1984). Representational momentum. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 10, 126–132.
13.
GalfanoG., RusconiE., & UmiltàC. (2006). Number magnitude orients attention, but not against one's will. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 869–874.
14.
GeversW., SantensS., DhoogeE., ChenQ., Van den BosscheL., FiasW., & VergutsT. (2010). Verbal-spatial and visuospatial coding of number-space interactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 139, 180–190.
15.
GöbelS. M., ShakiS., & FischerM. H. (2011). The cultural number line: A review of cultural and linguistic influences on the development of number processing. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42, 543–565.
16.
de HeviaM. D., VallarG., & GirelliL. (2008). Visualizing numbers in the mind's eye: The role of visuo-spatial processes in numerical abilities. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 32, 1361–1372.
17.
HuberS., MannA., NuerkH.-C., & MoellerK. (2013). Cognitive control in number magnitude processing: Evidence from eye-tracking. Psychological Research, doi:10.1007/s00426-013-0504-x
18.
JohanssonR. S., WestlingG., BäckströmA., & FlanaganJ. R. (2001). Eye–hand coordination in object manipulation. Journal of Neuroscience, 21(17), 6917–6932.
19.
KnopsA., ThirionB., HubbardE. M., MichelV., & DehaeneS. (2009). Recruitment of an area involved in eye movements during mental arithmetic. Science, 324, 1583–1585.
20.
KnopsA., ViarougeA., & DehaeneS. (2009). Dynamic representations underlying symbolic and nonsymbolic calculation: Evidence from the operational momentum effect. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 71(4), 803–821.
21.
KnopsA., ZitzmannS., & McCrinkK. (2013). Examining the presence and determinants of operational momentum in childhood. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 325.
22.
KongJ., WangC., KwongK., VangelM., ChuaE., & GollubR. (2005). The neural substrate of arithmetic operations and procedure complexity. Cognitive Brain Research, 22, 397–405.
23.
MacizoP., & HerreraA. (2013). The processing of Arabic numbers is under cognitive control. Psychological Research, 77, 651–658.
24.
McCrinkK., DehaeneS., & Dehaene-LambertzG. (2007). Moving along the number line: Operational momentum in nonsymbolic arithmetic. Perception & Psychophysics, 69, 1324–1333.
25.
PinhasM., & FischerM. H. (2008). Mental movements without magnitude? A study of spatial biases in symbolic arithmetic. Cognition, 109, 408–415.
26.
PinhasM., & FischerM. H. (2009, January). Addition is where the big numbers are: evidence for an inverse operational momentum effect. Poster presented at the 27th European Workshop on Cognitive Neuropsychology, Bressanone, Italy.
27.
PrablancC., EchallierJ. F., KomilisE., & JeannerodM. (1979). Optimal response of eye and hand motor systems in pointing at a visual target. Biological Cybernetics, 35(2), 113–124.
28.
RaynerK., & PollateskA. (1989). The psychology of reading. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
29.
ShakiS., FischerM. H., & PetrusicW. M. (2009). Reading habits for both words and numbers contribute to the SNARC effect. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 328–331.
30.
SheligaB. M., RiggioL., & RizzolattiG. (1994). Orienting of attention and eye movements. Experimental Brain Research, 98, 507–522.
UmiltàC., PriftisK., & ZorziM. (2009). The spatial representation of numbers: Evidence from neglect and pseudoneglect. Experimental Brain Research, 192, 561–569.
33.
ZebianS. (2005). Linkages between number concepts, spatial thinking, and directionality of writing: The SNARC effect and the REVERSE SNARC effect in English and Arabic monoliterates, biliterates, and illiterate Arabic speakers. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 5, 165–190.
