In the current study, cross-task interactions between number order and sound intensity judgments were assessed using a dual-task paradigm. Participants first categorized numerical sequences composed of Arabic digits as either ordered (ascending, descending) or non-ordered. Following each number sequence, participants then had to judge the intensity level of a target sound. Experiment 1 emphasized processing the two tasks independently (serial processing), while Experiments 2 and 3 emphasized processing the two tasks simultaneously (parallel processing). Cross-task interference occurred only when the task required parallel processing and was specific to ascending numerical sequences, which led to a higher proportion of louder sound intensity judgments. In Experiment 4 we examined whether this unidirectional interaction was the result of participants misattributing enhanced processing fluency experienced on ascending sequences as indicating a louder target sound. The unidirectional finding could not be entirely attributed to misattributed processing fluency, and may also be connected to experientially derived conceptual associations between ascending number sequences and greater magnitude, consistent with conceptual mapping theory.
AlaisD., & BurrD. (2004). Ventriloquist effect results from near-optimal bimodal integration. Current Biology, 14(3), 257–262. doi:10.1016/S0960-9822(04)00043-0
2.
Alards-TomalinD., WalkerA. C., KravetzA., & Leboe-McGowanL. C. (2015). Numerical context and time perception: Contrast effects and the perceived duration of numbers. Perception, 45(1–2), 222–245. doi:10.1177/0301006615594905
3.
Alards-TomalinD., WalkerA. C., ShawJ. D. M., & Leboe-McGowanL. C. (2015). Is 9 louder than 1? Audiovisual cross-modal interactions between number magnitude and judged sound loudness. Acta Psychologica, 160, 95–103. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2015.07.004
4.
AndresM., OstryD. J., NicolF., & PausT. (2008). Time course of number magnitude interference during grasping. Cortex, 44(4), 414–419. doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2007.08.007
5.
BaddeleyA. (1996). Exploring the central executive. Applied Psychology, 49(1), 5–28. doi:10.1080/713755608
6.
BadetsA., BouquetC. A., RicF., & PesentiM. (2012). Number generation bias after action observation. Experimental Brain Research, 221(1), 43–49. doi:10.1007/s00221-012-3145-1
7.
BonatoM., ZorziM., & UmiltàC. (2012). When time is space: Evidence for a mental time line. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 36(10), 2257–2273. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2012.08.007
8.
BonnelA., & HaftserE. R. (1998). Divided attention between simultaneous auditory and visual signals. Perception & Psychophysics, 60(2), 179–190. doi:10.3758/BF03206027
9.
BrignerW. L. (1986). Effect of perceived brightness on perceived time. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 63(2), 427–430. doi:10.2466/pms.1986.63.2.427
10.
BuetiD., & WalshV. (2009). The parietal cortex and the representation of time, space, number and other magnitudes. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 364(1525), 1831–1840. doi:10.1098/rstb.2009.0028
11.
CampbellJ. I. D., & ScheepersF. (2015). Effects of pitch on auditory number comparisons. Psychological Research, 79, 389–400. doi:10.1007/s00426-014-0571-7
12.
CasasantoD., & BoroditskyL. (2008). Time in the mind: Using space to think about time. Cognition, 106(2), 579–593. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2007.03.004
13.
CasasantoD., FotakopoulouO., & BoroditskyL. (2010). Space and time in the child's mind: Evidence for a cross-dimensional asymmetry. Cognitive Science, 34(3), 387–405. doi:10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01094.x
14.
Cohen KadoshR., Cohen KadoshK., HenikA., KadoshR. C., KadoshK. C., & HenikA. (2008). When brightness counts: The neuronal correlate of numerical-luminance interference. Cerebral Cortex, 18(2), 337–343. doi:10.1093/cercor/bhm058
15.
Cohen KadoshR., HenikA., & WalshV. (2007). Small is bright and big is dark in synaesthesia. Current Biology, 17(19), R834–R835. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2007.07.048
16.
de HeviaM.-D., GirelliL., BricoloE., & VallarG. (2008). The representational space of numerical magnitude: Illusions of length. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61(10), 1496–1514. doi:10.1080/17470210701560674
17.
DoehrmannO., & NaumerM. J. (2008). Semantics and the multisensory brain: How meaning modulates processes of audio-visual integration. Brain Research, 1242, 136–150. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2008.03.071
18.
EitanZ., SchupakA., & MarksL. E. (2008). Louder is higher: Cross-modal interaction of loudness change and vertical motion in speeded classification. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Music Perception and Cognition (ICMP10), 2008.
19.
FeigensonL., DehaeneS., & SpelkeE. (2004). Core systems of number. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 307–314. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2004.05.002
20.
FendrichR., & CorballisP. M. (2001). The temporal cross-capture of audition and vision. Perception & Psychophysics, 63(4), 719–725. doi:10.3758/BF03194432
21.
FischerR., MillerJ., & SchubertT. (2007). Evidence for parallel semantic memory retrieval in dual tasks. Memory & Cognition, 35(7), 1685–1699.
22.
GradeS., LefèvreN., & PesentiM. (2013). Influence of gaze observation on random number generation. Experimental Psychology, 60(2), 122–130. doi:10.1027/1618-3169/a000178
23.
HartmannM., & MastF. W. (2016). Loudness counts: Interactions between loudness, number magnitude and space. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. doi:10.1080/17470218.2016.1182194
24.
HeinemannA., PfisterR., & JanczykM. (2013). Manipulating number generation: Loud + long = large?Consciousness and Cognition, 22(4), 1332–1339. doi:10.1016/j.concog.2013.08.014
25.
HenikA., & TzelgovJ. (1982). Is three greater than five: The relation between physical and semantic size in comparison tasks. Memory & Cognition, 10(4), 389–395. doi:10.3758/BF03202431
26.
HeraiT., & MogiK. (2010). Effect of numeric order on subjective duration of following stimulus. Australian Journal of Intelligent Information Processing Systems, 11, 19–23.
27.
HinesT. M. (1990). An odd effect: Lengthened reaction times for judgments about odd digits. Memory & Cognition, 18(1), 40–46.
28.
HinesT. M., JeglinskaA.-H., BednarekD., & GrabowskaA. (1996). Sex differences in the processing of odd and even numbers. Acta Neurobiologiae Experimentalis, 56, 263–266.
29.
HowardI. P., & TempletonW. B. (1966). Human spatial orientation. New York: Wiley.
30.
HübnerR., & LehleC. (2007). Strategies of flanker coprocessing in single and dual tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 33(1), 103–123. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.33.1.103
31.
JacobyL. L., AllanL. G., CollinsJ. C., & LarwillL. K. (1988). Memory influences subjective experience: Noise judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14(2), 240–247. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.14.2.240
32.
KieselA., & VierckE. (2009). SNARC-like congruency based on number magnitude and response duration. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory & Cognition, 35(1), 275–279. doi:10.1037/a0013737
33.
LaurientiP. J., KraftR. A., MaldjianJ. A., BurdetteJ. H., & WallaceM. T. (2004). Semantic congruence is a critical factor in multisensory behavioral performance. Experimental Brain Research, 158(4), 405–414. doi:10.1007/s00221-004-1913-2
34.
LaurientiP. J., WallaceM. T., MaldjianJ. a., SusiC. M., SteinB. E., & BurdetteJ. H. (2003). Cross-modal sensory processing in the anterior cingulate and medial prefrontal cortices. Human Brain Mapping, 19(4), 213–223. doi:10.1002/hbm.10112
35.
LeboeL. C., & MondorT. A. (2007). Item-specific congruency effects in nonverbal auditory Stroop. Psychological Research, 71(5), 568–575. doi:10.1007/s00426-006-0049-3
36.
LeboeL. C., & MondorT. A. (2008). The role of a change heuristic in judgments of sound duration. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15(6), 1122–1127. doi:10.3758/PBR.15.6.1122
37.
LeboeL. C., & MondorT. A. (2010). The role of a change heuristic in judgments of sound intensity. Experimental Psychology, 57(5), 398–404. doi:10.1027/1618-3169/a000048
38.
LehleC., & HübnerR. (2009). Strategic capacity sharing between two tasks: Evidence from tasks with the same and with different task sets. Psychological Research, 73(5), 707–726. doi:10.1007/s00426-008-0162-6
39.
LindemannO., AbolafiaJ. M., GirardiG., & BekkeringH. (2007). Getting a grip on numbers: Numerical magnitude priming in object grasping. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33(6), 1400–1409. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.33.6.1400
40.
LoganG. D., & GordonR. (2001). Executive control of visual attention in dual-task situations. Psychological Review, 108(2), 393–434. doi:10.1037//0033-295X.108.2.393
41.
LoganG. D., & SchulkindM. D. (2000). Parallel memory retrieval in dual-task situations: I. Semantic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26(3), 1072–1090. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.26.3.1072
MartensS., KandulaM., & DuncanJ. (2010). Restricted attentional capacity within but not between sensory modalities: An individual differences approach. PLoS ONE, 5(12), 1–6. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0015280
44.
MassonM. E., & CaldwellJ. I. (1998). Conceptually driven encoding episodes create perceptual misattributions. Acta Psychologica, 98, 183–210. doi:10.1016/S0001-6918(97)00042-5
MerrittD. J., CasasantoD., & BrannonE. M. (2010). Do monkeys think in metaphors? Representations of space and time in monkeys and humans. Cognition, 117(2), 191–202. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2010.08.011
47.
MüllerD., & SchwarzW. (2008). “1-2-3”: Is there a temporal number line? Evidence from a serial comparison task. Experimental Psychology, 55(3), 143–150. doi:10.1027/1618-3169.55.3.143
48.
NaparstekS., & HenikA. (2010). Count me in! On the automaticity of numerosity processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(4), 1053–1059. doi:10.1037/a0019766
49.
NeuhoffJ. G. (2001). An adaptive bias in the perception of looming auditory motion. Ecological Psychology, 13(2), 87–110. doi:10.1207/S15326969ECO1302_2
50.
NeuhoffJ. G., & McBeathM. K. (1996). The Doppler illusion: The influence of dynamic intensity change on perceived pitch. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 22(4), 970–985. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.22.4.970
51.
OléronG. (1952). Influence of the intensity of a sound on the estimation of its apparent duration. L'année Psychologique, 52(2), 383–392. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/13041157
52.
OliveriM., VicarioC. M., SalernoS., KochG., TurrizianiP., ManganoR., … CaltagironeC. (2008). Perceiving numbers alters time perception. Neuroscience Letters, 438(3), 308–311. doi:10.1016/j.neulet.2008.04.051
53.
OnoF., & KawaharaJ. (2008). The effect of false memory on temporal perception. Psychological Research, 72(1), 61–64. doi:10.1007/s00426-006-0073-3
54.
OrietC., TombuM., & JolicoeurP. (2005). Symbolic distance affects two processing loci in the number comparison task. Memory & Cognition, 33(5), 913–926. doi:10.3758/BF03193085
55.
PariseC. V., & SpenceC. (2009). “When birds of a feather flock together”: Synesthetic correspondences modulate audiovisual integration in non-synesthetes. PLoS ONE, 4(5), e5664. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005664
56.
PashlerH., & JohnstonJ. C. (1989). Chronometric evidence for central postponement in temporally overlapping tasks. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 41(1), 19–45. doi:10.1080/14640748908402351
57.
PavaniF., SpenceC., & DriverJ. (2000). Visual capture of touch: Out-of-the-body experiences with rubber gloves. Psychological Science: A Journal of the American Psychological Society/APS, 11(5), 353–359. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00270
58.
Pavesea, & UmiltàC. (1998). Symbolic distance between numerosity and identity modulates Stroop interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 24(5), 1535–1545. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.24.5.1535
ReberR., ZimmermannT. D., & WurtzP. (2004). Judgments of duration, figure-ground contrast, and size for words and nonwords. Perception & Psychophysics, 66(7), 1105–1114. doi:10.3758/BF03196839
61.
RhodesM. G., & McCabeD. P. (2009). Expertise makes the world slow down: Judgements of duration are influenced by domain knowledge. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology (2006), 62(12), 2313–2319. doi:10.1080/17470210903128536
62.
SchwarzN., & CloreG. L. (2007). Feelings and Phenomenal Experiences. Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles, 2, 385–407.
SmithE. L., GraboweckyM., & SuzukiS. (2007). Auditory-visual crossmodal integration in perception of face gender. Current Biology, 17(19), 1680–1685. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2007.08.043
66.
SpenceC., RansonJ., & DriverJ. (2000). Cross-modal selective attention: On the difficulty of ignoring sounds at the locus of visual attention. Perception & Psychophysics, 62(2), 410–424. doi:10.3758/BF03205560
SPSS Inc. (2008). SPSS statistics for windows. Chicago: Author.
69.
StarrA., & BrannonE. M. (2016). Visuospatial working memory influences the interaction between space and time. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. doi:10.3758/s13423-016-1043-4
70.
TombuM., & JolicœurP. (2003). A central capacity sharing model of dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29(1), 3–18. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.29.1.3
71.
TurconiE., CampbellJ. I. D., & SeronX. (2006). Numerical order and quantity processing in number comparison. Cognition, 98, 273–285. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2004.12.002
72.
ViarougeA., & de HeviaM. D. (2013). The role of numerical magnitude and order in the illusory perception of size and brightness. Frontiers in Psychology, 4. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00484
73.
VicarioC. M., PecoraroP., TurrizianiP., KochG., CaltagironeC., & OliveriM. (2008). Relativistic compression and expansion of experiential time in the left and right space. PLoS ONE, 3(3), e1716. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0001716
74.
VierckE., & KieselA. (2010). Congruency effects between number magnitude and response force. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(1), 204–209. doi:10.1037/a0018105
75.
VroomenJ., & de GelderB. (2000). Sound enhances visual perception: Cross-modal effects of auditory organization on vision. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 26, 1583–1590. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.26.5.1583
76.
WahnB., & KönigP. (2015a). Audition and vision share spatial attentional resources, yet attentional load does not disrupt audiovisual integration. Frontiers in Psychology, 6(July), 1084. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01084
77.
WahnB., & KönigP. (2015b). Vision and haptics share attentional resources and visuotactile integration is not affected by high attentional load. Multisensory Research, 28(3–4), 371–392.
78.
WalshV. (2003). A theory of magnitude: Common cortical metrics of time, space and quantity. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(11), 483–488. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2003.09.002
79.
WalshV. (2015). A theory of magnitude: The parts that sum to number. In KadoshR. C. & DowkerA. (Eds.), The oxford handbook of numerical cognition (pp. 552–565). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
80.
WickensC. D. (1991). Processing resources and attention. In DamosD. L. (Ed.), Multiple task performance (pp. 3–35). London: Taylor & Francis.
81.
WilkieJ. E. B., & BodenhausenG. V. (2012). Are numbers gendered?Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141(2), 206–210. doi:10.1037/a0024875
82.
WilkieJ. E. B., & BodenhausenG. V. (2015). The numerology of gender: Gendered perceptions of even and odd numbers. Frontiers in Psychology, 6(June), 1–10. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00810
83.
WinterB., MarghetisT., & MatlockT. (2015). Of magnitudes and metaphors: Explaining cognitive interactions between space, time, and number. Cortex, 64, 209–224. doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2014.10.015
84.
WoodG., WillmesK., NuerkH.-C., & FischerM. H. (2008). On the cognitive link between space and number: A meta-analysis of the SNARC effect. Psychology Science Quarterly, 4(4), 489–525. doi:10.1027/1618-3169.52.3.187
