ArticlePsychological research2024
What makes different number-space mappings interact?
Article in Psychological research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Magnitude processing in young and older adults: Congruency between quantity and brightness.Memory & cognition · 2026Article
- Cognitive bridge between geometric and numerical learning in monkeys.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- Number, size, and space associated in a common system by distinct mechanisms.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
Abstract
Models of numerical cognition consider a visuo-spatial representation to be at the core of numerical processing, the 'mental number line'. Two main interference effects between number and space have been described: the SNARC effect reflects a small number/left side and large number/right side association (number-location mapping); the size-congruity effect (SCE) reflects a small number/small size and large number/large size association (number-size mapping). Critically, a thorough investigation on the representational source for these two number-space mappings is lacking, leaving open the question of whether the same representation underlies both phenomena. Here, we build on a recent study (Viarouge and de Hevia in Front Hum Neurosci 15:750964, 2021) in order to address this question in three experiments, by systematically manipulating the presence of the two conditions that might elicit an interaction between SNARC and SCE: (i) an implicit task whereby numerical and spatial information are task-irrelevant, (ii) a design in which the number-space congruency relative to both mappings vary at the same level -either both within or between blocks. Experiment 1 replicated the interaction between the two mappings when both factors were present. Experiments 2 and 3 dissociated the two factors by varying the two mappings at the same level but using an explicit comparison task (Experiment 2), or by using an implicit task but with mappings varying at different levels (Experiment 3). We found that both factors, either in combination or used in isolation, drive the interaction between the two number-space mappings. These findings are discussed in terms of the weight given to each mapping, suggesting that a single representation encompassing both number-space mappings is therefore activated whenever both mappings are given equal weight through task requirements.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38607389What 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.