Abstract

Some models of memory for arithmetic facts (e.g., 5+2=7, 6×7=42) assume that only the max-left order is stored in memory (e.g., 5+2=7 is stored but not 2+5=7). These models further assume an initial comparison of the two operands so that either operand order (5+2 or 2+5) can be mapped to the common internal representation. We sought evidence of number comparison in simple addition and multiplication by manipulating size congruity. In number comparison tasks, performance costs occur when the physical and numerical size of numerals are incongruent (8 3) relative to when they are congruent (8 3). Sixty-four volunteers completed a number comparison task, an addition task, and a multiplication task with both size congruent and size incongruent stimuli. The comparison task demonstrated that our stimuli were capable of producing robust size congruity and split effects. In the addition and multiplication task, however, we were unable to detect any of the RT signatures of comparison or reordering processes despite ample statistical power: Specifically, there was no evidence of size congruity, split, or order effects in either the addition or multiplication data. We conclude that our participants did not routinely engage a comparison operation and did not consistently reorder the operands to a preferred orientation.

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call