Abstract
Numerals (i.e., symbolic representations of numerical magnitude) are widespread in our environment and are fundamental to many decisions we make. It has been suggested that the processing of numerical magnitude is automatic. Various robust psychological effects, such as the distance effect (Moyer & Landauer, Nature, 215 (5109), 1519-1520, 1967) and the physical size-congruity effect (SiCE; Henik & Tzelgov, Memory & Cognition, 10 (4), 389-395, 1982), support this claim. Importantly, these effects demonstrate that the processing of numerical magnitude occurs unintentionally and while irrelevant to the task. These aspects often serve as criteria to assess the automatic nature of mental processes. However, evidence for the involvement of attention in the processing of magnitude of numerals somewhat subverts the automaticity account that was originally put forward. To reconcile between evidence in support of the automaticity account and evidence that compromises this account, we drew on another account of automaticity. This account distinguishes between strongly automatic and partly automatic mental processes based on their susceptibility to attentional influences. In the current study, we manipulated endogenous attention while participants completed numerical and physical comparisons of numerals, separately. We observed modulations of the SiCE for physical comparisons but not for numerical comparisons of numerals. That is, the processing of numerical magnitude when irrelevant was subjected to attentional influences, but the processing of their physical magnitude (i.e., size) was not. Therefore, we concluded that processing the numerical magnitude is partly automatic, whereas processing their physical magnitude is strongly automatic.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Arend, I., & Henik, A. (2015). Choosing the larger versus choosing the smaller: Asymmetries in the size congruity effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41, 1821–1830.
Ashkenazi, S., Rubinsten, O., & Henik, A. (2009). Attention, automaticity, and developmental dyscalculia. Neuropsychology, 23(4), 535–540.
Bargh, J. A. (1994). The four horsemen of automaticity: Intention, awareness, efficiency, and control as separate issues. In R. S. Wyer Jr. & T. K. Srull (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition (pp. 1–40). Erlbaum.
Besner, D., & Coltheart, M. (1979). Ideographic and alphabetic processing in skilled reading of English. Neuropsychologia, 17(5), 467–472.
Cohen, J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Erlbaum.
Cohen Kadosh, R., Henik, A., & Rubinsten, O. (2008). Are Arabic and verbal numbers processed in different ways? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34(6), 1377–1391.
Dehaene, S. (1992). Varieties of numerical abilities. Cognition, 44(1-2), 1–42.
Dehaene, S. (1996). The organization of brain activations in number comparison: Event-related potentials and the additive-factors method. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 8, 47–68.
Dehaene, S. (1997). The number sense. Oxford University Press.
Dehaene, S., & Akhavein, R. (1995). Attention, automaticity, and levels of representation in number processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21(2), 314–326.
Duncan, E. M., & McFarland, C. E. (1980). Isolating the effects of symbolic distance, and semantic congruity in comparative judgments: An additive-factors analysis. Memory & Cognition, 8(6), 612–622.
Ganor-Stern, D., & Tzelgov, J. (2008). Across-notation automatic numerical processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34(2), 430–437.
Goldfarb, L., & Tzelgov, J. (2005). Is size perception based on monocular distance cues computed automatically? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12(4), 751–754.
Goldsmith, M., & Yeari, M. (2003). Modulation of object-based attention by spatial focus under endogenous and exogenous orienting. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29(5), 897–918.
Henik, A., & Tzelgov, J. (1982). Is three greater than five: The relation between physical and semantic size in comparison tasks. Memory & Cognition, 10(4), 389–395.
Kahneman, D., & Chajczyk, D. (1983). Tests of the automaticity of reading: dilution of Stroop effects by color-irrelevant stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 9(4), 497–509.
LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6(2), 293–323.
Leibovich, T., Diesendruck, L., Rubinsten, O., & Henik, A. (2013). The importance of being relevant: Modulation of magnitude representations. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, Article 369.
Logan, G. D. (1988). Toward an instance theory of automatization. Psychological Review, 95(4), 492–527.
Maloney, E. A., Risko, E. F., Preston, F., Ansari, D., & Fugelsang, J. (2010). Challenging the reliability and validity of cognitive measures: The case of the numerical distance effect. Acta Psychologica, 134(2), 154–161.
Mathôt, S., Schreij, D., & Theeuwes, J. (2012). OpenSesame: An open-source, graphical experiment builder for the social sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 44(2), 314–324.
Moors, A., & De Houwer, J. (2006). Automaticity: a theoretical and conceptual analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 132(2), 297–326.
Morin, R. E., DeRosa, D. V., & Stultz, V. (1967). Recognition memory and reaction time. Acta Psychologica, 27, 298–305.
Moyer, R. S., & Landauer, T. K. (1967). Time required for judgements of numerical inequality. Nature, 215(5109), 1519–1520.
Naparstek, S., & Henik, A. (2010). Count me in! On the automaticity of numerosity processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(4), 1053–1059.
Naparstek, S., & Henik, A. (2012). Laterality briefed: Laterality modulates performance in a numerosity-congruity task. Consciousness and Cognition, 21(1), 444–450.
Naparstek, S., Safadi, Z., Lichtenstein-Vidne, L., & Henik, A. (2015). Flanking magnitudes: Dissociation between numerosity and numerical value in a selective attention task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41(4), 1262–1268.
Pavese, A., & Umiltà, C. (1998). Symbolic distance between numerosity and identity modulates Stroop interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24(5), 1535–1545.
Pavese, A., & Umiltà, C. (1999). Further evidence on the effects of symbolic distance on Stroop-like interference. Psychological Research, 62(1), 62–71.
Posner, M. I., & Snyder, C. R. R. (2004). Attention and cognitive control. In D. A. Balota & E. J. Marsh (Eds.), Cognitive psychology: Key readings (pp. 205–223). Psychology Press.
Rafal, R., & Henik, A. (1994). The neurology of inhibition: Integrating controlled and automatic processes. In D. Dagenbach & T. H. Carr (Eds.), Inhibitory processes in attention, memory and language (pp. 1–51). Academic Press.
Risko, E. F., Maloney, E. A., & Fugelsang, J. A. (2013). Paying attention to attention: Evidence for an attentional contribution to the size congruity effect. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 75(6), 1137–1147.
Rubinsten, O., & Henik, A. (2002). Is an ant larger than a lion? Acta Psychologica, 111(1), 141–154.
Rubinsten, O., & Henik, A. (2005). Automatic activation of internal magnitudes: a study of developmental dyscalculia. Neuropsychology, 19(5), 641–648.
Santens, S., & Verguts, T. (2011). The size congruity effect: Is bigger always more? Cognition, 118(1), 94–110.
Schwarz, W., & Heinze, H. J. (1998). On the interaction of numerical and size information in digit comparison: A behavioral and event-related potential study. Neuropsychologia, 36(11), 1167–1179.
Schwarz, W., & Ischebeck, A. (2003). On the relative speed account of number-size interference in comparative judgments of numerals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29(3), 507–522.
Singmann, H., Bolker, B., Westfall, J., & Aust, F. (2015). afex: Analysis of factorial experiments. R package version, 0, 13–145.
Sobel, K. V., Puri, A. M., & Faulkenberry, T. J. (2016). Bottom-up and top-down attentional contributions to the size congruity effect. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 78(5), 1324–1336.
Sternberg, S. (1969). The discovery of processing stages: Extension of Donders’ method. Acta Psychologica, 30, 276–315.
Sudevan, P., & Taylor, D. A. (1987). The cuing and priming of cognitive operations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 13(1), 89–103.
Szűcs, D., & Soltész, F. (2007). Event-related potentials dissociate facilitation and interference effects in the numerical Stroop paradigm. Neuropsychologia, 45(14), 3190–3202.
Tzelgov, J. (1997). Automatic but conscious: That is how we act most of the time. Advances in Social Cognition, 10, 217–230.
Tzelgov, J., & Ganor-Stern, D. (2005). Automaticity in processing ordinal information. In J. I. D. Campbell (Ed.), Handbook of mathematical cognition (pp. 55–66). Psychology Press.
Tzelgov, J., Meyer, J., & Henik, A. (1992). Automatic and intentional processing of numerical information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18(1), 166–179.
Wickham H (2016). ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. Springer-Verlag New York. ISBN 978-3-319-24277-4, https://ggplot2.tidyverse.org.
Zbrodoff, N. J., & Logan, G. D. (1986). On the autonomy of mental processes: A case study of arithmetic. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115(2), 118–130.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Not applicable.
Additional information
Open practices statement
The data and materials for our experiment are available via the Open Science Framework at https://osf.io/4fp9y/. This experiment was not preregistered.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary information
ESM 1
(DOCX 110 kb)
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Avitan, A., Wasserman, S. & Henik, A. Endogenous attention modulates automaticity of number processing. Psychon Bull Rev (2024). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-023-02438-4
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-023-02438-4