PCI Registered Reports

Announcements

We are recruiting recommenders (editors) from all research fields!

Your feedback matters! If you have authored or reviewed a Registered Report at Peer Community in Registered Reports, then please take 5 minutes to leave anonymous feedback about your experience, and view community ratings.

Back

808

Title *

One and only SNARC? Spatial-Numerical Associations are not fully flexible and depend on both relative and absolute magnitudeuse asterix (*) to get italics

Authors *

Lilly Roth, John Caffier, Ulf-Dietrich Reips, Hans-Christoph Nuerk, Annika Tave Overlander, Krzysztof CiporaPlease use the format "First name initials family name" as in "Marie S. Curie, Niels H. D. Bohr, Albert Einstein, John R. R. Tolkien, Donna T. Strickland"

Year *

2024

Picture

Abstract *

<p>Numbers are associated with space, but it is unclear how flexible these associations are. We investigated whether the SNARC effect (Spatial-Numerical Association of Response Codes; Dehaene et al., 1993; i.e., faster responses to small/large number magnitude with the left/right hand, respectively) is fully flexible (depending only on relative magnitude within a stimulus set), or not (depending on absolute magnitude as well). Evidence for relative-magnitude dependency came from studies observing that numbers 4 and 5 were associated with the right when presented in a 0 – 5 range but with the left in a 4 – 9 range (Dehaene et al., 1993; Fias et al., 1996). However, this conclusion was drawn from the absence of evidence for absolute-magnitude dependency in frequentist analyses in underpowered studies. Within this Registered Report, we conducted two online experiments running Bayesian analyses with optional recruitment stopping at moderate evidence for (BF10 above 3) or against (BF10 below 1/3) each hypothesis. Experiment 1 (N = 200) replicated relative-magnitude dependency using the same stimuli as Fias et al. and Dehaene et al. However, Experiment 2 (N = 300) additionally demonstrated absolute-magnitude dependency, while considering recent advances in SNARC research (mainly by improving the stimulus sets and using 1 – 5 excluding 3 and 4 – 8 excluding 6). We conclude that the frequently perpetuated notion of fully flexible spatial-numerical associations is wrong. Some fixed relation to absolute magnitude prevails, especially for some numbers. We suggest that these findings have important consequences for how spatial-numerical associations might support numerical processing.</p>

Indicate the full web address (DOI or URL) giving public access to these data (if you have any problems with the deposit of your data, please contact contact@rr.peercommunityin.org). *

You should fill this box only if you chose 'All or part of the results presented in this preprint are based on data'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Indicate the full web address (DOI or URL) giving public access to these scripts (if you have any problems with the deposit of your scripts, please contact contact@rr.peercommunityin.org). *

You should fill this box only if you chose 'Scripts were used to obtain or analyze the results'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Indicate the full web address (DOI, SWHID or URL) giving public access to these codes (if you have any problems with the deposit of your codes, please contact contact@rr.peercommunityin.org). *

You should fill this box only if you chose 'Codes have been used in this study'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Keywords (optional)

spatial-numerical associations, SNARC effect, mental number line, replication, flexibility

Methods that require specific expertise (optional)

NonePlease indicate the methods that may require specialised expertise during the peer review process (use a comma to separate various required expertises).

Thematic fields *

Life Sciences

Suggested reviewers - Suggest up to 10 reviewers (provide names and Email addresses). (Optional)

No need for them to be recommenders of PCI Registered Reports. Please do not suggest reviewers for whom there might be a conflict of interest. Reviewers are not allowed to review preprints written by close colleagues (with whom they have published in the last four years, with whom they have received joint funding in the last four years, or with whom they are currently writing a manuscript, or submitting a grant proposal), or by family members, friends, or anyone for whom bias might affect the nature of the review - see the code of conduct

Opposed reviewers - Suggest up to 5 people not to invite as reviewers. (Optional)

e.g. John Doe [john@doe.com]

Submission date

2024-06-10 15:00:30

Recommender

Robert McIntosh

Reviewers

or Register
Submit a report

Announcements

MANAGING BOARD

MEMBER OF

INDEXED BY