@article{MiklashevskyFischerLindemann2022, author = {Miklashevsky, Alex and Fischer, Martin H. and Lindemann, Oliver}, title = {Spatial-numerical associations without a motor response? Grip force says 'Yes'}, series = {Acta Psychologica}, volume = {231}, journal = {Acta Psychologica}, publisher = {Elsevier}, address = {Amsterdam}, issn = {1873-6297}, doi = {10.1016/j.actpsy.2022.103791}, pages = {1 -- 17}, year = {2022}, abstract = {In numerical processing, the functional role of Spatial-Numerical Associations (SNAs, such as the association of smaller numbers with left space and larger numbers with right space, the Mental Number Line hypothesis) is debated. Most studies demonstrate SNAs with lateralized responses, and there is little evidence that SNAs appear when no response is required. We recorded passive holding grip forces in no-go trials during number processing. In Experiment 1, participants performed a surface numerical decision task ("Is it a number or a letter?"). In Experiment 2, we used a deeper semantic task ("Is this number larger or smaller than five?"). Despite instruction to keep their grip force constant, participants' spontaneous grip force changed in both experiments: Smaller numbers led to larger force increase in the left than in the right hand in the numerical decision task (500-700 ms after stimulus onset). In the semantic task, smaller numbers again led to larger force increase in the left hand, and larger numbers increased the right-hand holding force. This effect appeared earlier (180 ms) and lasted longer (until 580 ms after stimulus onset). This is the first demonstration of SNAs with passive holding force. Our result suggests that (1) explicit motor response is not a prerequisite for SNAs to appear, and (2) the timing and strength of SNAs are task-dependent. (216 words).}, language = {en} } @misc{MiklashevskyFischerLindemann2022, author = {Miklashevsky, Alex and Fischer, Martin H. and Lindemann, Oliver}, title = {Spatial-numerical associations without a motor response? Grip force says 'Yes'}, series = {Zweitver{\"o}ffentlichungen der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe}, journal = {Zweitver{\"o}ffentlichungen der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe}, number = {810}, issn = {1866-8364}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-57832}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-578324}, pages = {12}, year = {2022}, abstract = {In numerical processing, the functional role of Spatial-Numerical Associations (SNAs, such as the association of smaller numbers with left space and larger numbers with right space, the Mental Number Line hypothesis) is debated. Most studies demonstrate SNAs with lateralized responses, and there is little evidence that SNAs appear when no response is required. We recorded passive holding grip forces in no-go trials during number processing. In Experiment 1, participants performed a surface numerical decision task ("Is it a number or a letter?"). In Experiment 2, we used a deeper semantic task ("Is this number larger or smaller than five?"). Despite instruction to keep their grip force constant, participants' spontaneous grip force changed in both experiments: Smaller numbers led to larger force increase in the left than in the right hand in the numerical decision task (500-700 ms after stimulus onset). In the semantic task, smaller numbers again led to larger force increase in the left hand, and larger numbers increased the right-hand holding force. This effect appeared earlier (180 ms) and lasted longer (until 580 ms after stimulus onset). This is the first demonstration of SNAs with passive holding force. Our result suggests that (1) explicit motor response is not a prerequisite for SNAs to appear, and (2) the timing and strength of SNAs are task-dependent. (216 words).}, language = {en} } @misc{FischerWinterFelisattietal.2021, author = {Fischer, Martin and Winter, Bodo and Felisatti, Arianna and Myachykov, Andriy and Jeglinski-Mende, Melinda A. and Shaki, Samuel}, title = {More Instructions Make Fewer Subtractions}, series = {Zweitver{\"o}ffentlichungen der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe}, volume = {12}, journal = {Zweitver{\"o}ffentlichungen der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe}, publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam}, address = {Potsdam}, issn = {1866-8364}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-55008}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-550086}, pages = {1 -- 3}, year = {2021}, abstract = {Research on problem solving offers insights into how humans process task-related information and which strategies they use (Newell and Simon, 1972; {\"O}llinger et al., 2014). Problem solving can be defined as the search for possible changes in one's mind (Kahneman, 2003). In a recent study, Adams et al. (2021) assessed whether the predominant problem solving strategy when making changes involves adding or subtracting elements. In order to do this, they used several examples of simple problems, such as editing text or making visual patterns symmetrical, either in naturalistic settings or on-line. The essence of the authors' findings is a strong preference to add rather than subtract elements across a diverse range of problems, including the stabilizing of artifacts, creating symmetrical patterns, or editing texts. More specifically, they succeeded in demonstrating that "participants were less likely to identify advantageous subtractive changes when the task did not (vs. did) cue them to consider subtraction, when they had only one opportunity (vs. several) to recognize the shortcomings of an additive search strategy or when they were under a higher (vs. lower) cognitive load" (Adams et al., 2021, p. 258). Addition and subtraction are generally defined as de-contextualized mathematical operations using abstract symbols (Russell, 1903/1938). Nevertheless, understanding of both symbols and operations is informed by everyday activities, such as making or breaking objects (Lakoff and N{\´u}{\~n}ez, 2000; Fischer and Shaki, 2018). The universal attribution of "addition bias" or "subtraction neglect" to problem solving activities is perhaps a convenient shorthand but it overlooks influential framing effects beyond those already acknowledged in the report and the accompanying commentary (Meyvis and Yoon, 2021). Most importantly, while Adams et al.'s study addresses an important issue, their very method of verbally instructing participants, together with lack of control over several known biases, might render their findings less than conclusive. Below, we discuss our concerns that emerged from the identified biases, namely those regarding the instructions and the experimental materials. Moreover, we refer to research from mathematical cognition that provides new insights into Adams et al.'s findings.}, language = {en} } @article{FischerWinterFelisattietal.2021, author = {Fischer, Martin and Winter, Bodo and Felisatti, Arianna and Myachykov, Andriy and Jeglinski-Mende, Melinda A. and Shaki, Samuel}, title = {More Instructions Make Fewer Subtractions}, series = {Frontiers in Psychology}, volume = {12}, journal = {Frontiers in Psychology}, publisher = {Frontiers Media SA}, address = {Lausanne, Schweiz}, issn = {1664-1078}, doi = {10.3389/fpsyg.2021.720616}, pages = {1 -- 3}, year = {2021}, abstract = {Research on problem solving offers insights into how humans process task-related information and which strategies they use (Newell and Simon, 1972; {\"O}llinger et al., 2014). Problem solving can be defined as the search for possible changes in one's mind (Kahneman, 2003). In a recent study, Adams et al. (2021) assessed whether the predominant problem solving strategy when making changes involves adding or subtracting elements. In order to do this, they used several examples of simple problems, such as editing text or making visual patterns symmetrical, either in naturalistic settings or on-line. The essence of the authors' findings is a strong preference to add rather than subtract elements across a diverse range of problems, including the stabilizing of artifacts, creating symmetrical patterns, or editing texts. More specifically, they succeeded in demonstrating that "participants were less likely to identify advantageous subtractive changes when the task did not (vs. did) cue them to consider subtraction, when they had only one opportunity (vs. several) to recognize the shortcomings of an additive search strategy or when they were under a higher (vs. lower) cognitive load" (Adams et al., 2021, p. 258). Addition and subtraction are generally defined as de-contextualized mathematical operations using abstract symbols (Russell, 1903/1938). Nevertheless, understanding of both symbols and operations is informed by everyday activities, such as making or breaking objects (Lakoff and N{\´u}{\~n}ez, 2000; Fischer and Shaki, 2018). The universal attribution of "addition bias" or "subtraction neglect" to problem solving activities is perhaps a convenient shorthand but it overlooks influential framing effects beyond those already acknowledged in the report and the accompanying commentary (Meyvis and Yoon, 2021). Most importantly, while Adams et al.'s study addresses an important issue, their very method of verbally instructing participants, together with lack of control over several known biases, might render their findings less than conclusive. Below, we discuss our concerns that emerged from the identified biases, namely those regarding the instructions and the experimental materials. Moreover, we refer to research from mathematical cognition that provides new insights into Adams et al.'s findings.}, language = {en} } @article{MioniFischerShaki2021, author = {Mioni, Giovanna and Fischer, Martin H. and Shaki, Samuel}, title = {Heuristics and biases in the mental manipulation of magnitudes}, series = {Quarterly journal of experimental psychology / published in association with Experimental Psychology Society}, volume = {74}, journal = {Quarterly journal of experimental psychology / published in association with Experimental Psychology Society}, number = {3}, publisher = {SAGE Publishing}, address = {Thousand Oaks, CA}, issn = {1747-0218}, doi = {10.1177/1747021820967663}, pages = {536 -- 547}, year = {2021}, abstract = {There is a debate about whether and why we overestimate addition and underestimate subtraction results (Operational Momentum or OM effect). Spatial-attentional accounts of OM compete with a model which postulates that OM reflects a weighted combination of multiple arithmetic heuristics and biases (AHAB). This study addressed this debate with the theoretically diagnostic distinction between zero problems (e.g., 3 + 0, 3 - 0) and non-zero problems (e.g., 2 + 1, 4 - 1) because AHAB, in contrast to all other accounts, uniquely predicts reverse OM for the latter problem type. In two tests (line-length production and time production), participants indeed produced shorter lines and under-estimated time intervals in non-zero additions compared with subtractions. This predicted interaction between operation and problem type extends OM to non-spatial magnitudes and highlights the strength of AHAB regarding different problem types and modalities during the mental manipulation of magnitudes. They also suggest that OM reflects methodological details, whereas reverse OM is the more representative behavioural signature of mental arithmetic.}, language = {en} } @misc{FelisattiLaubrockShakietal.2020, author = {Felisatti, Arianna and Laubrock, Jochen and Shaki, Samuel and Fischer, Martin H.}, title = {Commentary}, series = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe}, journal = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe}, number = {620}, issn = {1866-8364}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-46041}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-460413}, pages = {6}, year = {2020}, language = {en} } @article{FelisattiLaubrockShakietal.2020, author = {Felisatti, Arianna and Laubrock, Jochen and Shaki, Samuel and Fischer, Martin H.}, title = {Commentary}, series = {Frontiers in Human Neuroscience}, volume = {14}, journal = {Frontiers in Human Neuroscience}, publisher = {Frontiers Research Foundation}, address = {Lausanne}, issn = {1662-5161}, doi = {10.3389/fnhum.2020.00099}, pages = {4}, year = {2020}, language = {en} } @article{SixtusLonnemannFischeretal.2019, author = {Sixtus, Elena and Lonnemann, Jan and Fischer, Martin H. and Werner, Karsten}, title = {Mental Number Representations in 2D Space}, series = {Frontiers in Psychology}, volume = {10}, journal = {Frontiers in Psychology}, publisher = {Frontiers Research Foundation}, address = {Lausanne}, issn = {1664-1078}, doi = {10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00172}, pages = {11}, year = {2019}, abstract = {There is evidence both for mental number representations along a horizontal mental number line with larger numbers to the right of smaller numbers (for Western cultures) and a physically grounded, vertical representation where "more is up." Few studies have compared effects in the horizontal and vertical dimension and none so far have combined both dimensions within a single paradigm where numerical magnitude was task-irrelevant and none of the dimensions was primed by a response dimension. We now investigated number representations over both dimensions, building on findings that mental representations of numbers and space co-activate each other. In a Go/No-go experiment, participants were auditorily primed with a relatively small or large number and then visually presented with quasi-randomly distributed distractor symbols and one Arabic target number (in Go trials only). Participants pressed a central button whenever they detected the target number and elsewise refrained from responding. Responses were not more efficient when small numbers were presented to the left and large numbers to the right. However, results indicated that large numbers were associated with upper space more strongly than small numbers. This suggests that in two-dimensional space when no response dimension is given, numbers are conceptually associated with vertical, but not horizontal space.}, language = {en} } @misc{SixtusLonnemannFischeretal.2019, author = {Sixtus, Elena and Lonnemann, Jan and Fischer, Martin H. and Werner, Karsten}, title = {Mental Number Representations in 2D Space}, series = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe}, journal = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe}, number = {538}, issn = {1866-8364}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-42496}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-424960}, year = {2019}, abstract = {There is evidence both for mental number representations along a horizontal mental number line with larger numbers to the right of smaller numbers (for Western cultures) and a physically grounded, vertical representation where "more is up." Few studies have compared effects in the horizontal and vertical dimension and none so far have combined both dimensions within a single paradigm where numerical magnitude was task-irrelevant and none of the dimensions was primed by a response dimension. We now investigated number representations over both dimensions, building on findings that mental representations of numbers and space co-activate each other. In a Go/No-go experiment, participants were auditorily primed with a relatively small or large number and then visually presented with quasi-randomly distributed distractor symbols and one Arabic target number (in Go trials only). Participants pressed a central button whenever they detected the target number and elsewise refrained from responding. Responses were not more efficient when small numbers were presented to the left and large numbers to the right. However, results indicated that large numbers were associated with upper space more strongly than small numbers. This suggests that in two-dimensional space when no response dimension is given, numbers are conceptually associated with vertical, but not horizontal space.}, language = {en} } @article{FischerShaki2018, author = {Fischer, Martin H. and Shaki, Samuel}, title = {Repeating Numbers Reduces Results: Violations of the Identity Axiom in Mental Arithmetic}, series = {Frontiers in psychology}, volume = {9}, journal = {Frontiers in psychology}, publisher = {Frontiers Research Foundation}, address = {Lausanne}, issn = {1664-1078}, doi = {10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02453}, pages = {9}, year = {2018}, abstract = {Even simple mental arithmetic is fraught with cognitive biases. For example, adding repeated numbers (so-called tie problems, e.g., 2 + 2) not only has a speed and accuracy advantage over adding different numbers (e.g., 1 + 3) but may also lead to under-representation of the result relative to a standard value (Charras et al., 2012, 2014). Does the tie advantage merely reflect easier encoding or retrieval compared to non-ties, or also a distorted result representation? To answer this question, 47 healthy adults performed two tasks, both of which indicated under-representation of tie results: In a result-to-position pointing task (Experiment 1) we measured the spatial mapping of numbers and found a left-bias for tie compared to non-tie problems. In a result-to-line-length production task (Experiment 2) we measured the underlying magnitude representation directly and obtained shorter lines for tie-compared to non-tie problems. These observations suggest that the processing benefit of tie problems comes at the cost of representational reduction of result meaning. This conclusion is discussed in the context of a recent model of arithmetic heuristics and biases.}, language = {en} }