Abstract
Previous studies, which examined whether symbolic and non-symbolic quantity representations are processed by two independent systems or by one common system, reached contradicting findings, possibly due to methodological differences. Indeed, some researchers advocate the two systems approach, based on the presence of notation-specific switch cost in conditions where adults have to compare pairs of symbolic and non-symbolic quantities, in combination with the absence of such a cost in conditions containing quantities of the same notation. However, other researchers used matching instructions, and reported a facilitation in the mixed notation conditions, suggesting that the two systems are automatically integrated. In the current study, we conducted three experiments, in which we examined the existence of two separate quantity systems, but we used various experimental manipulations (e.g., task instructions, presentation order) to unravel the previous inconsistent findings. In Experiment 1, we investigated the role of task instructions by presenting participants with pure and mixed notation trials with both comparison and matching tasks. In Experiment 2, we tested the role of blocked and randomized presentation order for the pure and mixed trials. Our data showed that cost for switching between the symbolic and non-symbolic quantities is present, but is prone to a certain methodological drawback: when the differences between the processing times for two sequentially presented stimuli of different notations are not taken into account, this masks the cost for switching between the two systems. To overcome this problem, in Experiment 3 we used an audio-visual paradigm. Overall, our results provide further evidence for the existence of distinct quantity representations, independently of task instructions or presentation order. Additionally, considering this methodological pitfall we argue that the audio-visual paradigm is better suited when investigating the integration between symbolic and non- symbolic quantities.
Highlights
Mean accuracy scores and median reaction times (RT) on correct responses were submitted to a repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) with instruction and notation as within-subject variables
The switch cost for the digit–dot condition was computed by calculating the difference between the RT in the digit–dot condition and the RT in the dot–dot condition, because the dot–dot condition was the slowest pure one
In Experiment 1, we replicated experiments 2 and 3 of Lyons et al [22], but instead of only using one instruction format, our participants performed the task with both comparison and matching instructions
Summary
The aim of the present study was to use various experimental manipulations to investigate this issue again, while bridging some of the methodological differences between these previous studies. The goal of the present study was twofold: 1) to test for the existence of separate symbolic and non-symbolic number representation systems, and 2) to investigate whether the extent to which the evidence for distinct quantity systems is found depends on the task instructions and/or other methodological factors
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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
