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...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
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 |