↓ Skip to main content

The SNARC effect is not a unitary phenomenon

Overview of attention for article published in Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 Mendeley
Title
The SNARC effect is not a unitary phenomenon
Published in
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, December 2017
DOI 10.3758/s13423-017-1408-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sara Basso Moro, Roberto Dell’Acqua, Simone Cutini

Abstract

Models of the spatial-numerical association of response codes (SNARC) effect-faster responses to small numbers using left effectors, and the converse for large numbers-diverge substantially in localizing the root cause of this effect along the numbers' processing chain. One class of models ascribes the cause of the SNARC effect to the inherently spatial nature of the semantic representation of numerical magnitude. A different class of models ascribes the effect's cause to the processing dynamics taking place during response selection. To disentangle these opposing views, we devised a paradigm combining magnitude comparison and stimulus-response switching in order to monitor modulations of the SNARC effect while concurrently tapping both semantic and response-related processing stages. We observed that the SNARC effect varied nonlinearly as a function of both manipulated factors, a result that can hardly be reconciled with a unitary cause of the SNARC effect.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 39 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 18%
Student > Bachelor 5 13%
Researcher 5 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 8%
Other 6 15%
Unknown 10 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 23 59%
Arts and Humanities 1 3%
Neuroscience 1 3%
Engineering 1 3%
Unknown 13 33%