title: Two-digit number processing: holistic, decomposed or hybrid? A computational modelling approach.
abstract: Currently, there are three competing theoretical accounts concerning the nature of two-digit number magnitude representation: a holistic, a strictly decomposed, and a hybrid model. Observation of the unit-decade compatibility effect (Nuerk et al. in Cognition 82:B25-B33, 2001) challenged the view of two-digit number magnitude to be represented as one integrated entity. However, at the moment there is no study distinguishing between the decomposed and the hybrid model. The present study addressed this issue using a computational modelling approach. Three network models complying with the constraints of all three theoretical models were programmed and trained on two-digit number comparison. Models were compared as to how well they accounted for empirical effects in the most parsimonious way. Generally, this evaluation indicated that the empirical data were simulated best by the strictly decomposed model. Implications of these results for our understanding of the nature of human number magnitude representation are discussed.
authors.affiliation: Institute of Psychology, Eberhard Karls University, Tuebingen, Germany. korbinian.moeller@uni-tuebingen.de
authors.forename: K
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Moeller
authors.forename: S
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Huber
authors.forename: H-C
authors.initials: HC
authors.lastname: Nuerk
authors.forename: K
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Willmes
mesh_terms: D000704:Analysis of Variance; D008433:Mathematics; D008960:Models, Psychological; D011930:Reaction Time
references.citation: Cognition. 2001 Nov;82(1):B25-33
references.pmid: 11672709
references.citation: J Cogn Neurosci. 2004 Nov;16(9):1493-504
references.pmid: 15601514
references.citation: Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2000;9 Suppl 2:II27-40
references.pmid: 11138903
references.citation: Cortex. 1997 Jun;33(2):219-50
references.pmid: 9220256
references.citation: Behav Brain Sci. 2009 Aug;32(3-4):313-28; discussion 328-73
references.pmid: 19712504
references.citation: Cortex. 2006 Nov;42(8):1128-37
references.pmid: 17209418
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1990 Aug;16(3):626-41
references.pmid: 2144576
references.citation: Cogn Neuropsychol. 2003 May 1;20(3):487-506
references.pmid: 20957581
references.citation: Neural Netw. 2003 Oct;16(8):1107-40
references.pmid: 13678618
references.citation: Neuron. 2007 Jan 18;53(2):307-14
references.pmid: 17224410
references.citation: Exp Psychol. 2005;52(3):195-200
references.pmid: 16076067
references.citation: Neuron. 2007 Jan 18;53(2):293-305
references.pmid: 17224409
references.citation: Cognition. 1994 Oct;53(1):1-44
references.pmid: 7988104
references.citation: Q J Exp Psychol A. 2004 Jul;57(5):835-63
references.pmid: 15204120
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2001 May;12(3):238-43
references.pmid: 11437307
references.citation: Cortex. 2008 Apr;44(4):429-38
references.pmid: 18387575
references.citation: Cognition. 2008 Mar;106(3):1525-36
references.pmid: 17707788
references.citation: Exp Psychol. 2006;53(4):275-82
references.pmid: 17176659
references.citation: Nature. 1967 Sep 30;215(5109):1519-20
references.pmid: 6052760
references.citation: Cognition. 1995 Dec;57(3):271-95
references.pmid: 8556844
references.citation: Exp Psychol. 2004;51(1):72-9
references.pmid: 14959508
references.citation: Cognition. 1992 Aug;44(1-2):107-57
references.pmid: 1511584
references.citation: Neuroimage. 2006 Jan 15;29(2):358-67
references.pmid: 16253524
references.citation: J Cogn Neurosci. 1993 Fall;5(4):390-407
references.pmid: 23964915
references.citation: Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2009 Feb;62(2):323-34
references.pmid: 18609373
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2005 Feb;12(1):66-80
references.pmid: 15945201
references.citation: Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2009 Mar;62(3):444-52
references.pmid: 18785072