Abstract
In Western participants, small numbers are associated with left and larger numbers with right space. A biological account proposes that brain asymmetries lead to these attentional asymmetries in number space. In contrast, a cultural account proposes that the direction of this association is shaped by reading direction. We explored whether number generation is influenced by reading direction in participants from a left-to-right (UK) and a right-to-left (Arab) reading culture. Participants generated numbers randomly while lying on their left and right side. The mean number generated by participants from a left-to-right reading culture was smaller when they lay on their left than on their right side, and the opposite was found for participants from a right-to-left reading culture. Asymmetries in number space observed in number generation are more compatible with a cultural than biological account.
References
Bächtold D, Baumüller M, Brugger P (1998) Stimulus–response compatibility in representational space. Neuropsychologia 36:731–735
Dehaene S, Bossini S, Giraux P (1993) The mental representation of parity and number magnitude. J Exp Psychol Gen 122:371–396
Fias W, Brysbaert M, Geypens F, d’Ydewalle G (1996) The importance of magnitude information in numerical processing: evidence from the SNARC effect. Math Cogn 2:95–110
Fischer MH, Shaki S, Cruise A (2009) It takes just one word to quash a SNARC. Exp Psychol 56(5):361–366
Hartmann M, Grabherr L, Mast FW (2012) Moving along the mental number line: interactions between whole-body motion and numerical cognition. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 38(6):1416
Loetscher T, Brugger P (2007) Exploring number space by random digit generation. Exp Brain Res 180(4):655–665
Loetscher T, Schwarz U, Schubiger M, Brugger P (2008) Head turns bias the brain’s internal random generator. Curr Biol 18(2):R60–R62
Rashidi-Ranjbar N, Goudarzvand M, Jahangiri S, Brugger P, Loetscher T (2014) No horizontal numerical mapping in a culture with mixed-reading habits. Front Human Neurosci 8:72. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2014.00072
Rugani R, Vallortigara G, Priftis K, Regolin L (2015) Number-space mapping in the newborn chick resembles humans’ mental number line. Science 347:534–536. doi:10.1126/science.aaa1379
Shaki S, Fischer MH (2008) Reading space into numbers-a cross-linguistic comparison of the SNARC effect. Cognition 108(2):590–599
Shaki S, Fischer MH (2014) Random walks on the mental number line. Exp Brain Res 232(1):43–49
Shaki S, Fischer MH, Petrusic WM (2009) Reading habits for both words and numbers contribute to the SNARC effect. Psychon Bull Rev 16:328–331
Shaki S, Fischer MH, Göbel SM (2012) Direction counts: a comparative study of spatially directional counting biases in cultures with different reading directions. J Exp Child Psychol 112:275–281. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2011.12.005
Towse JN, Loetscher T, Brugger P (2014) Not all numbers are equal: preferences and biases among children and adults when generating random sequences. Front Psychol 5:19. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00019
Viarouge A, Hubbard EM, McCandliss BD (2014) The cognitive mechanisms of the SNARC effect: an individual differences approach. PLoS ONE 9(4):e95756
Zorzi M, Priftis K, Umiltà C (2002) Brain damage: neglect disrupts the mental number line. Nature 417:138–139
Acknowledgments
We thank the children, adults and schools who took part in this study and Yinwen Ko, Hannah Roome, Sinead Allpress and Courtney Poole for their assistance in data collection. This study was funded by a British Academy/Leverhulme Small Research Grant (SG121544).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Göbel, S.M., Maier, C.A. & Shaki, S. Which numbers do you have in mind? Number generation is influenced by reading direction. Cogn Process 16 (Suppl 1), 241–244 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-015-0715-8
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-015-0715-8