TY  - JOUR
A1  - Miklashevsky, Alex
A1  - Fischer, Martin H.
A1  - Lindemann, Oliver
T1  - Spatial-numerical associations without a motor response? Grip force says ‘Yes’
JF  - Acta Psychologica
N2  - 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).
KW  - SNARC
KW  - Mental number line
KW  - Number processing
KW  - Embodied cognition
KW  - Grip force
KW  - Motor system
Y1  - 2022
U6  - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2022.103791
SN  - 1873-6297
VL  - 231
SP  - 1
EP  - 17
PB  - Elsevier
CY  - Amsterdam
ER  - 
TY  - JOUR
A1  - Fischer, Martin
A1  - Winter, Bodo
A1  - Felisatti, Arianna
A1  - Myachykov, Andriy
A1  - Jeglinski-Mende, Melinda A.
A1  - Shaki, Samuel
T1  - More Instructions Make Fewer Subtractions
JF  - Frontiers in Psychology
N2  - Research on problem solving offers insights into how humans process task-related information and which strategies they use (Newell and Simon, 1972; Öllinger 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 Núñez, 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.
KW  - problem solving
KW  - addition
KW  - subtraction
KW  - cognitive bias
KW  - SNARC
Y1  - 2021
U6  - https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.720616
SN  - 1664-1078
VL  - 12
SP  - 1
EP  - 3
PB  - Frontiers Media SA
CY  - Lausanne, Schweiz
ER  -