4.2 Article

Loudness counts: Interactions between loudness, number magnitude, and space

Journal

QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY
Volume 70, Issue 7, Pages 1305-1322

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/17470218.2016.1182194

Keywords

A theory of magnitude; Spatial-numerical association of response codes; Numerical Stroop; Loudness; Numerical cognition; Volume

Funding

  1. Swiss National Science Foundation [P2BEP1_152104]
  2. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) [P2BEP1_152104] Funding Source: Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

ATOM (a theory of magnitude) suggests that magnitude information of different formats (numbers, space, and time) is processed within a generalized magnitude network. In this study we investigated whether loudness, as a possible indicator of intensity and magnitude, interacts with the processing of numbers. Small and large numbers, spoken in a quiet and a loud voice, were simultaneously presented to the left and right ear (Experiments 1a and 1b). Participants judged whether the number presented to the left or right ear was louder or larger. Responses were faster when the smaller number was spoken in a quiet voice, and the larger number in a loud voice. Thus, task-irrelevant numerical information influenced the processing of loudness and vice versa. This bi-directional link was also confirmed by classical SNARC paradigms (spatial-numerical association of response codes; Experiments 2a-2c) when participants again judged the magnitude or loudness of separately presented stimuli. In contrast, no loudness-number association was found in a parity judgment task. Regular SNARC effects were found in the magnitude and parity judgment task, but not in the loudness judgment task. Instead, in the latter task, response side was associated with loudness. Possible explanations for these results are discussed.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available