Cargando…

Automaticity of Conceptual Magnitude

What is bigger, an elephant or a mouse? This question can be answered without seeing the two animals, since these objects elicit conceptual magnitude. How is an object’s conceptual magnitude processed? It was suggested that conceptual magnitude is automatically processed; namely, irrelevant conceptu...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gliksman, Yarden, Itamar, Shai, Leibovich, Tali, Melman, Yonatan, Henik, Avishai
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4754897/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26879153
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep21446
_version_ 1782416107905220608
author Gliksman, Yarden
Itamar, Shai
Leibovich, Tali
Melman, Yonatan
Henik, Avishai
author_facet Gliksman, Yarden
Itamar, Shai
Leibovich, Tali
Melman, Yonatan
Henik, Avishai
author_sort Gliksman, Yarden
collection PubMed
description What is bigger, an elephant or a mouse? This question can be answered without seeing the two animals, since these objects elicit conceptual magnitude. How is an object’s conceptual magnitude processed? It was suggested that conceptual magnitude is automatically processed; namely, irrelevant conceptual magnitude can affect performance when comparing physical magnitudes. The current study further examined this question and aimed to expand the understanding of automaticity of conceptual magnitude. Two different objects were presented and participants were asked to decide which object was larger on the screen (physical magnitude) or in the real world (conceptual magnitude), in separate blocks. By creating congruent (the conceptually larger object was physically larger) and incongruent (the conceptually larger object was physically smaller) pairs of stimuli it was possible to examine the automatic processing of each magnitude. A significant congruity effect was found for both magnitudes. Furthermore, quartile analysis revealed that the congruity was affected similarly by processing time for both magnitudes. These results suggest that the processing of conceptual and physical magnitudes is automatic to the same extent. The results support recent theories suggested that different types of magnitude processing and representation share the same core system.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4754897
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Nature Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-47548972016-02-24 Automaticity of Conceptual Magnitude Gliksman, Yarden Itamar, Shai Leibovich, Tali Melman, Yonatan Henik, Avishai Sci Rep Article What is bigger, an elephant or a mouse? This question can be answered without seeing the two animals, since these objects elicit conceptual magnitude. How is an object’s conceptual magnitude processed? It was suggested that conceptual magnitude is automatically processed; namely, irrelevant conceptual magnitude can affect performance when comparing physical magnitudes. The current study further examined this question and aimed to expand the understanding of automaticity of conceptual magnitude. Two different objects were presented and participants were asked to decide which object was larger on the screen (physical magnitude) or in the real world (conceptual magnitude), in separate blocks. By creating congruent (the conceptually larger object was physically larger) and incongruent (the conceptually larger object was physically smaller) pairs of stimuli it was possible to examine the automatic processing of each magnitude. A significant congruity effect was found for both magnitudes. Furthermore, quartile analysis revealed that the congruity was affected similarly by processing time for both magnitudes. These results suggest that the processing of conceptual and physical magnitudes is automatic to the same extent. The results support recent theories suggested that different types of magnitude processing and representation share the same core system. Nature Publishing Group 2016-02-16 /pmc/articles/PMC4754897/ /pubmed/26879153 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep21446 Text en Copyright © 2016, Macmillan Publishers Limited http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in the credit line; if the material is not included under the Creative Commons license, users will need to obtain permission from the license holder to reproduce the material. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
spellingShingle Article
Gliksman, Yarden
Itamar, Shai
Leibovich, Tali
Melman, Yonatan
Henik, Avishai
Automaticity of Conceptual Magnitude
title Automaticity of Conceptual Magnitude
title_full Automaticity of Conceptual Magnitude
title_fullStr Automaticity of Conceptual Magnitude
title_full_unstemmed Automaticity of Conceptual Magnitude
title_short Automaticity of Conceptual Magnitude
title_sort automaticity of conceptual magnitude
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4754897/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26879153
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep21446
work_keys_str_mv AT gliksmanyarden automaticityofconceptualmagnitude
AT itamarshai automaticityofconceptualmagnitude
AT leibovichtali automaticityofconceptualmagnitude
AT melmanyonatan automaticityofconceptualmagnitude
AT henikavishai automaticityofconceptualmagnitude