ArticleCognitive processing2024
Practice-induced SNARC: evidence from a null-SNARC sample.
Article in Cognitive processing, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The STEARC effect revisited: does time shape spatial attention and memory?Cognitive processing · 2026Article
- Exploring foot-based SNARC effect by hand posture: insights from embodied cognition.Cognitive processing · 2026Article
- Measuring SNARC effect: different task setups reveal divergent spatial-numerical associations.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Effect of spatial training on space-number mapping: a situated cognition account.Psychological research · 2025Article
- Dichotomous horizontal representation of acute deterioration risk on illnesses.Scientific reports · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The mental representation of numbers inherently involves a spatial organization, often positioning smaller numbers to the left and larger numbers to the right. The SNARC effect, characterized by faster responses to small numbers using the left hand and vice versa for large numbers, is typically attributed to this left-to-right oriented mental number line (MNL). However, the direction of the SNARC effect seems to rely on reading direction, with most research exploring these mechanisms conducted within left-to-right reading cultures where the SNARC effect is prevalent. This study takes advantage of a sample from a left-to-right reading culture that does not exhibit the SNARC effect, allowing us to isolate and elucidate the stand-alone effects of recent experiences on SNARC. Therefore, the current study aims to investigate how MNL-compatible and MNL-incompatible practices induce an effect within a sample lacking the SNARC effect. To accomplish this, we reinvited the individuals from the sample which had previously shown no SNARC, and retested those who agreed to take part in the current study after an MNL-compatible or MNL-incompatible practice manipulation. The findings revealed an absence of the SNARC effect with MNL-compatible practices. Conversely, MNL-incompatible practices yielded a reverse SNARC effect. These results prompt a discussion on SNARC mechanisms within the framework of practice effects.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38739287What 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.