ArticleScientific reports2023
Associations between physical size and space are strongly asymmetrical.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Response Preparation and the Simon Effect: Experimental and Model-Based Analyses.Journal of cognition · 2026Article
- Where does the processing of size meet the processing of space?Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2025Article
- Verbal stimuli allow for symmetrical S-R priming effects between size and space.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Different grasping experiences affect mapping effects but not correspondence effects between stimulus size and response location.Psychological research · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The spatial-size association of response codes (SSARC) effect describes the phenomenon that left responses are faster and more accurate to small stimuli whereas right responses are faster and more accurate to large stimuli, as compared to the opposite mapping. The effect indicates associations between the mental representations of physical size and space. Importantly, the theoretical accounts of SSARC effects make different predictions about the reciprocity and/or symmetry of spatial-size associations. To investigate the reciprocity of SSARC effects, we compared compatibility effects in two verbal choice-response tasks: a size-location (typical SSARC) task and a location-size (reciprocal SSARC) task. In the size-location task, participants responded verbally to a small/large stimulus by saying "left"/"right". In the location-size task, participants responded verbally to a left-/right-side stimulus by saying "small"/"large". Participants completed both tasks with a compatible (small-left, large-right; left-small, right-large) and an incompatible (small-right, large-left; left-large, right-small) mapping. A regular SSARC effect emerged in the size-location task. However, no reciprocal SSARC effect emerged in the location-size task if outliers were excluded. If outliers were not excluded, small reciprocal SSARC effects occurred. Associations underlying the SSARC effect are thus strongly asymmetrical: Physical (stimulus) size can prime spatial responses much more strongly than spatial (stimulus) position can prime size-related responses. The finding of asymmetrical associations between size and space is in line with some theoretical accounts of the SSARC effect but at odds with others.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.