Reevaluating the two-representation model of numerical magnitude processing

Jiang, Ting; Zhang, Wenfeng; Wen, Wen; Zhu, Haiting; Du, Han; Zhu, Xiangru; Gao, Xuefei; Zhang, Hongchuan; Dong, Qi; Chen, Chuansheng

doi:10.3758/s13421-015-0542-2

Item

ITEM ACTIONSEXPORT

Add to Basket

Local TagsRelease HistoryDetailsSummary

Released

Journal Article

Reevaluating the two-representation model of numerical magnitude processing

MPS-Authors

/persons/resource/persons133639

Gao, Xuefei
Psychology of Language Department, MPI for Psycholinguistics, Max Planck Society;

External Resource

No external resources are shared

Fulltext (restricted access)

There are currently no full texts shared for your IP range.

Fulltext (public)

Jiang_etal_2016.pdf
(Publisher version), 622KB

Supplementary Material (public)

There is no public supplementary material available

Citation

Jiang, T., Zhang, W., Wen, W., Zhu, H., Du, H., Zhu, X., et al. (2016). Reevaluating the two-representation model of numerical magnitude processing. Memory & Cognition, 44, 162-170. doi:10.3758/s13421-015-0542-2.

Cite as: https://hdl.handle.net/11858/00-001M-0000-0028-3C47-B

Abstract

One debate in mathematical cognition centers on the single-representation model versus the two-representation model. Using an improved number Stroop paradigm (i.e., systematically manipulating physical size distance), in the present study we tested the predictions of the two models for number magnitude processing. The results supported the single-representation model and, more importantly, explained how a design problem (failure to manipulate physical size distance) and an analytical problem (failure to consider the interaction between congruity and task-irrelevant numerical distance) might have contributed to the evidence used to support the two-representation model. This study, therefore, can help settle the debate between the single-representation and two-representation models. © 2015 The Author(s)