The extent to which processing of abstract numerical concepts depends on perceptual representations is still an open question. In four experiments, we examined the association between contrast polarity and mental arithmetic, as well as its possible source. Undergraduate psychology students verified the correctness of single-digit arithmetic problems such as 2 + 5 = 7 or 9 − 6 = 5. Problems appeared either in white or black on a grey background, thus creating positive or negative contrast polarity, respectively. When the correct response was Yes (No), participants were faster (slower) in verifying positive than negative addition problems and in verifying negative than positive subtraction problems. Experiment 2 confirmed that the same result also held for written word problems (e.g., SEVEN + SIX = THIRTEEN). However, Experiment 3 found that the effect of contrast polarity observed in Experiments 1 and 2 disappeared in a blocked design where arithmetic operation was a between-participant factor. In addition, Experiment 4 revealed that the effect of contrast polarity does not generalise to multiplication and division. Overall, available evidence suggests that participants spontaneously associate the abstract relation between addition and subtraction (more-less) with a similar relation between contrast polarities (bright-dark).
BonnC.CantlonJ. F. (2012). The origins and structure of quantitative concepts. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 29, 149–173.
2.
BoroditskyL. (2000). Metaphoric structuring: Understanding time through spatial metaphors. Cognition, 75, 1–28.
3.
BottiniR.CasasantoD. (2013). Space and time in the child’s mind: Metaphoric or ATOMic?Frontiers in Psychology, 4, e803. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00803
4.
BuettiD.WalshV. (2009). The parietal cortex and the representation of time, space, number, and other magnitudes. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B, 364, 1831–1840.
5.
CampbellJ. I. D. (1994). Architectures for numerical cognition. Cognition, 53, 1–44.
6.
CampbellJ. I. D. (1999). The surface form × problem size interaction in cognitive arithmetic: Evidence against an encoding locus. Cognition, 70, B25–B33.
7.
CampbellJ. I. D. (2015). How abstract is arithmetic? In Cohen KadoshR.DowkerA. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of numerical cognition (pp. 140–157). Oxford University Press.
8.
CampbellJ. I. D.ClarkJ. M. (1988). An encoding–complex view of cognitive number processing: Comment on McCloskey, Sokol, & Goodman (1986). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 117, 204–214.
9.
CampbellJ. I. D.ClarkJ. M. (1992). Numerical cognition: An encoding–complex perspective. In CampbellJ. I. D. (Ed.), The nature and origins of mathematical skills (pp. 457–491). Elsevier Science.
10.
CampbellJ. I. D.EppL. J. (2005). Architectures for arithmetic. In CampbellJ. I. D. (Ed.), Handbook of mathematical cognition (pp. 347–377). Psychology Press.
11.
CampbellJ. I. D.FugelsangJ. (2001). Strategy choice for arithmetic verification: Effects of numerical surface form. Cognition, 80, B21–B30.
12.
CampbellJ. I. D.ThompsonV. A. (2012). MorePower 6.0 for ANOVA with relational confidence intervals and Bayesian analysis. Behavior Research Methods, 44(4), 1255–1265. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-012-0186-0
13.
CasasantoD.BoroditskyL. (2008). Time in the mind: Using space to think about time. Cognition, 106, 579–593.
14.
Cohen KadoshR.Cohen KadoshK.HenikA. (2008). When brightness counts: The neuronal correlate of numerical–luminance interference. Cerebral Cortex, 18, 337–343.
15.
Cohen KadoshR.LammertynJ.IzardV. (2008). Are numbers special? An overview of chronometric, neuroimaging, developmental and comparative studies of magnitude representation. Progress in Neurobiology, 84, 132–147.
16.
CousineauD. (2005). Confidence intervals in within-subject designs: A simpler solution to Loftus and Masson’s method. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 1, 42–45. https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.01.1.p042
17.
DehaeneS.BossiniS.GirauxP. (1993). The mental representation of parity and number magnitude. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122, 371–396. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.122.3.371
18.
DehaeneS.PiazzaM.PinelP.CohenL. (2003). Three parietal circuits for number processing. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 20, 487–506.
FischerM. H.ShakiS. (2014). Spatial associations in numerical cognition —From single digits to arithmetic. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67, 1461–1483. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2014.927515
23.
FischerM. H.ShakiS. (2018). Number concepts: Abstract and embodied. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 373, e20170125. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2017.0125
24.
FumarolaA.PrpicV.Da PosO.MurgiaM.UmiltàC.AgostiniT. (2014). Automatic spatial association for luminance. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 76, 759–765.
25.
GebuisT.van der SmagtM. J. (2011). Incongruence in number-luminance congruency effects. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 37, 259–265.
26.
HenikA.TzelgovJ. (1982). Is three greater than five: The relation between physical and semantic size in comparison tasks. Memory & Cognition, 10, 389–395.
KnopsA.DehaeneS.BertelettiI.ZorziM. (2014). Can approximate mental calculation account for operational momentum in addition and subtraction?Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67, 1541–1556. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2014.890234
30.
KnopsA.ThirionB.HubbardE. M.MichelV.DehaeneS. (2009). Recruitment of an area involved in eye movements during mental arithmetic. Science, 324, 1583–1585.
31.
KnopsA.ViarougeA.DehaeneS. (2009). Dynamic representations underlying symbolic and nonsymbolic calculation: Evidence from the operational momentum effect. Attention Perception & Psychophysics, 71, 803–821.
32.
KnopsA.ZitzmannS.McCrinkK. (2013). Examining the presence and determinants of operational momentum in childhood. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, e325. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00325
33.
LakensD. (2012). Polarity correspondence in metaphor congruency effects: Structural overlap predicts categorization times for bipolar concepts presented in vertical space. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 38(3), 726–736. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024955
34.
LakensD.SeminG. R.ForoniF. (2012). But for the bad, there would not be good: Grounding valence in brightness through structural similarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141, 584–594.
35.
LakoffG.JohnsonM. (1980). Metaphors we live by. The Chicago University Press.
36.
LakoffG.NúñezR. (2000). Where mathematics comes from: How the embodied mind brings mathematics into being. Basic Books.
37.
LandyD. H.GoldstoneR. L. (2007). How abstract is symbolic thought?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 33, 720–733.
38.
LandyD. H.GoldstoneR. L. (2010). Proximity and precedence in arithmetic. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 1953–1968.
39.
McCrinkK.DehaeneS.Dehaene-LambertzG. (2007). Moving along the number line: Operational momentum in nonsymbolic arithmetic. Perception & Psychophysics, 69, 1324–1333. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03192949
40.
McCrinckK.WynnK. (2009). Operational momentum in large-number addition and subtraction by 9-month-olds. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 103, 400–408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2009.01.013
41.
MoreyR. D. (2008). Confidence intervals from normalized data: A correction to Cousineau (2005). Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 4, 61–64. https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.04.2.p061
PinelP.PiazzaM.LeBihanD.DehaeneS. (2004). Distributed and overlapping cerebral representations of number size and luminance during comparative judgments. Neuron, 41, 983–993.
44.
PinhasM.FischerM. H. (2008). Mental movements without magnitude? A study of spatial biases in symbolic arithmetic. Cognition, 109, 408–415.
45.
PinhasM.ShakiS.FischerM. H. (2014). Heed the signs: Operation signs have spatial associations. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67, 1527–1540. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2014.892516
46.
PinhasM.ShakiS.FischerM. H. (2015). Addition goes where the big numbers are: Evidence for a reversed operational momentum effect. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22(4), 993–1000. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-014-0786-z
47.
Pinheiro–ChagasP.DidinoD.HaaseV. G.WoodG.KnopsA. (2019). The developmental trajectory of the operational momentum effect. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, e1062. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01062
48.
ProctorR. W.ChoY. S. (2006). Polarity correspondence: A general principle for performance of speeded binary classification tasks. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 416–442.
49.
ProctorR. W.XiongA. (2015). Polarity correspondence as a general compatibility principle. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(6), 446–451. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721415607305
50.
R Core Team. (2019). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. https://www.R-project.org/
51.
RusconiE.KwanB.GiordanoB. L.UmiltàC.ButterworthB. (2006). Spatial representation of pitch height: The SMARC effect. Cognition, 99, 113–129.
52.
SantiagoJ.LakensD. (2015). Can conceptual congruency effects between number, time, and space be accounted for by polarity correspondence?Acta Psychologica, 156, 179–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2014.09.016
SchunnC. D.RederL. M.NhouyvanisvongA.RichardsD. R.StroffolinoP. J. (1997). To calculate or not to calculate: A source activation confusion model of problem familiarity’s role in strategy selection. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23, 3–29.
55.
SeymourP. H. K. (1973). Judgments of verticality and response availability. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 1, 196–198.
56.
SeymourP. H. K. (1974). Asymmetries in judgments of verticality. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 102, 447–455.
57.
ShakiS.FischerM. H. (2017). Competing biases in metal arithmetic: When division is more and multiplication is less. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 11, e37. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2017.00037
58.
ShakiS.SeryN.FischerM. H. (2015). 1 + 2 is more than 2 + 1: Violations of commutativity and identity axioms in mental arithmetic. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 27, 471–477. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2014.973414
59.
SieglerR. S.ShipleyC. (1995). Variation, selection, and cognitive change. In HalfordG.SimonT. (Eds.), Developing cognitive competence: New approaches to process modelling (pp. 31–76). Lawrence Erlbaum.
60.
WalshV. (2003). A theory of magnitude: Common cortical metrics of time, space and quantity. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 483–488.
61.
WoodG.WillmesK.NuerkH.-C.FischerM. H. (2008). On the cognitive link between space and number: A meta-analysis of the SNARC effect. Psychology Science, 50, 489–525.
62.
ZbrodoffW.LoganM. H. (2005). What everyone finds: The problem-size effect. In CampbellJ. I. D. (Ed.), Handbook of mathematical cognition (pp. 331–345). Psychology Press.
63.
ZhuR.YouX.GanS.WangJ. (2019). Spatial attention shifts in addition and subtraction arithmetic: Evidence of eye movements. Perception, 48(9), 835–849. https://doi.org/10.1177/0301006619865156
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
